5.  ;■;;/;'. '■;j;;ji;-'i';,;Vi- 


KEVI 


of\    >, 


(Tan  niaclarcn) 


"Die  of  m  master' 


Jls  Published  by 


mceiure's  magazine 

(may,  1900,  €fc.) 


BY 

EI3AVI:N    a.     WILSON 

SPRINGFIELD,  ILL. 

1903 


BS2420 
,W747    f:^?.  ^ 


wsmm^i 


1 3. 'OS 


■0^ 


NS-C* 


S* 


^^  i^t  ®l?Poiogir^|  ^ 


^/»/, 


'vSi 


«V, 


PRINCETON,  N.  J 


.V747 


Section 


REVIEW 


OF 


Rev.  John  Watson's 


<Ian  Maclaren) 


(( 


Life  of  the  Master 


AS  PUBLISHED    IN 


McCLURE'S  MAGAZINE 

(May  1900,  Etc,) 


EDWIN    A.    AATII-SON 

Springfield,  Iix, 
1903. 


"THE  LIFE  OF  THE  MASTER" 


There  is  but  one  authentic  'source  from  which 
to  gather  into  story,  anything  that  Is  helpful  ana 
trustworthy  as  "a  life  of  the  Master."  The 
Sacred  Scriptures  contain  all  that  is  revealed  of 
the  Father  concerning  Hi3  Son,  .Jesus  Christ.  Any 
attempt  of  the  imagination  which  undertakes  to 
m  )re  than  set  forth  the  divine  utterance  in  its 
relation  to  the  Godman,  is  but  a  work  of  super- 
erogation, and  every  effort  to  produce  a  life  of 
our  Lord  which  does  not  involve  every  line  that 
is  written  of  Him  by  the  divine  penman,  and  no 
more,  is  incomplete,  misleading  and  satanic. 

To  write  of  Christ  to  editlcation,  one  needs 
to  be  Spirit-taught;  the  Spirit's  channel  of  such 
communication  to  men  is  the  Word;  knowledge 
of  and  subjection  to  the  Book  of  Books  are  essen- 
tial elements  in  equipment  for  such  service.  A 
further  condition  precedent  is  faith  in  what  must 
be  admitted  is  above  nature,  and  only  to  be  ap- 
prehended by  faith,  as  taught  by  the  Spirit— rev- 
elation, not  reason,  the  basis;  any  life  of  Jesus  ' 
which  does  not  honor  the  Sacred  Writings  by  ac- 
counting for  every  phenomena  in  what  is  writ- 
ten, rather  than  in  the  imagination,  comes  short. 
If  the  advent  of  Jesus  was  planned  in  the  coun- 
cils of  eternity,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  has  chron- 
icled sufficient  of  the  details  in  the  sacred  volume 
to  give  a  connected  history  of  "The  Master,"  why 
does  the  Reverend  gentleman  proceed  to  mislead 
the  popular  reader  by  leaving  out  points  of  salient 
interest:  First  as  it  relates  to  an  elemental  thought 
of  Him,  as  found  in  Gen.  3:15.  "Her  seed,"  or 
second,  "Behold  a  virgin  shall  conceive  and  bear 
a  Son,  and  shall  call  His  name  ImmanueP'  (God 
with  us).  Is.  7:14.  Third,  "and  behold  thou  shalt 
conceive  in  thy  womb,  and  bring  forth  a  Son, 
and  shall   call   His   name   Jesus;   and  the  Holy 


Ghost  shall  come  upon  thee,  and  the  power  of 
the  Highest  shall  overshadcw  thee:  therefore 
also  that  holy  thing  which  shall  be  born  of  thee 
shall  be  called  the  Son  of  God."'  Luke  1:31-35. 
To  pass  by  without  notice  what  lias  been  writ- 
ten concerning  the  origin  and  only  explanation 
of  the  personal  presence  in  the  likeness  of  men; 
of  One  in  whom  so  much  of  intense  interest  has 
centered  for  time  and  eternity,  is  criminal.  It 
banishes  to  the  domain  of  uncertainty  and  un- 
reliability every  line  written  by  this  reverend 
doctor. 

Dr.  John  Watson's  language,  it  is  readily 
confessed,  is  most  chaste  and  elegant,  his 
imagery  is  charming,  but  when  he  becomes  a 
mere  romancer  and  indifferently  invades  the 
sacred  precincts  of  divinity,  he  becomes  a  factor 
for  evil  and  not  for  good.  In  his  efforts  to  fur- 
nish pabulum  for  the  popular  taste,  he  reads 
his  own  misconceptions  into  the  divine  revela- 
tion, while  should  he  confine  himself  to  the 
ancient  and  honored  Record,  the  Holy  Script- 
ures, he  would  at  once  lose  what  he  is  seeking, 
the  applause  of  men. 

We  are  not  then  surprised  at  the  low  plane 
of  the  merely  human,  upon  which  he  bases  his 
opening  thoughts  concerning  "The  Master. " 
Authority  and  accuracy  are  the  dual  pillars 
which  must  support  a  fabric  that  is  to  be 
symmetrical  and  substantial.  If  the  Bible  then 
is  not  his  only  source  of  information  and  literal 
lines  followed  in  its  transcription,  his  whole 
life  of  the  Master  is  an  unworthy  production. 
Error  in  one  part  suggests  inaccuracy  every- 
where; if  he  accepts  the  teaching  on  one  page 
of  the  Bible,  and  rejects  that  of  another  part, 
he  presumes  to  sit  in  judgment  upon  it  all, 
and  lience  is  unfitted  to  discuss  any  part  of 
this  wonderful  Record.  To  add  to  what  ia 
written  is  as  reprehensible  as  to  take  from  what 
is  written.  Luke  2:9  says  "and  the  angel  of 
the  Lord  came  upon  them,  and  the  glory  of  the 
Lord    shone    round    about  them,"'  but  nowhere 


does  the  sacred  historian  say  "and  a  star  rested 
above  Bethlehem."  Matthew  does,  however, 
say  "and  the  star  which  they  saw  in  the  east 
went  before  them  till  it  came  and  stood  over 
where  the  young  child  was."  The  annunciation 
sent  the  shepherds  to  Bethlehem  in  haste, 
where  they  found  Mary,  Joseph  and  the  babe, 
according  to  Luke. 

But  He  was  circumcised  on  the  eighth  day 
and  His  name  called  Jesus  according  to  Luke, 
and  in  harmony  with  Lev.  12:3,  thirty-three 
days  after  He  was  presented  to  the  Lord,  in 
the  Temple,  at  Jerusalem;  hence  we  know  from 
Luke  2:39,  that  after  this,  when  the  babe  Jesus 
was  perhaps  forty-two  or  three  days  old,  they 
went  to  their  own  city,  Nazareth,  and  not 
again  to  Bethlehem's  manger. 

Matthew  and  Luke  give  the  place  of  nativ- 
ity. The  wise  men  led  by  the  star  came  in 
search  of  the  newly  born  King  of  the  Jews. 
We  do  not  know  how  many  wise  men,  from 
whence  they  came,  or  their  names.  We  know 
that  ihe  star  stood  over  where  the  young  child 
wa^;  where  this  was  we  are  not  told,  save  that 
it  was  in  a  house  (Matt.  2:11);  but  we  know 
that  Herod  basing  his  conclusions  upon  what 
he  had  learned  of  the  wise  men  (Matt.  2:16) 
slew  all  the  children  from  two  years  old  and 
under  in  Bethlehem  and  the  coasts  thereof. 

The  wise  men  did  not  seem  to  do  homage 
to  the  babe  of  Luke,  but  to  the  child  of  Mat- 
thew. The  visits  of  the  shepherds  and  that  of 
the  wise  men  must  have  occurred  at  different 
times  and  places.' 

It  might  be  accepted  as^good  logic  that  the 
beautiful  in  almost  any  lad's  life  might  be 
readily  traced  to  his  mother,  and  to  wise  men 
in  halls  of  learning;  not  so,  however,  would 
this  be  true  in  the  case  of  the  child  Jesus, 
who,  at  the  age  of  twelve  years,  was  not  only 
at  home  in  His  Father's  house,  but  about  His 
Father's  business,  and  absolutely  untrammeled 
as  the  son  of  God  by  any  human  relationship. 


We  note  with  pleasure,  and  commend  as  praise- 
worthy, Dr.  Watson's  tribute  to  the  Book,  which 
all  might  profitably  heed,  wherein  he  says  "For 
Jesus  there  could  be  only  one  book,  but  it  was 
the  best"  For  the  nonce  divestinj^-  iiimself  of 
the  taint  of  hi^lier  criticism  the  Doctor  here 
indites  a  commendable  word  for  the  Book  of 
Deuteronomy. 

Dr.  Watson's  tribute  to  labor  as  he  finds  it 
exemplified  in  the  carpenter,  deserves  more  than 
a  passing  word,  though  he  persists  in  lowering 
the  exalted  standard,  from  the  divine  to  the 
human,  as  he  traces  much  of  the  grandeur  and 
loveliness  he  beholds  in  this  wonderful  Saviour 
to  His  home  and  mother. 

Again  as  lie  came  forth  in  response  to  the 
divine  call,  it  is  no  where  affirmed  that  He  came 
to  establish  the  Kingdom,  even  thougli  the  am- 
bitious mother  of  Zebedee's  children  sought  tiie 
best  places  for  her  sous.  Jesus  was  born  King, 
His  lineage  in  Matthew  is  traced  to  prove  him 
Kingly,  a  King  indeed,  but  without  a  Kingdom, 
a  King,  but  in  rejection.  The  Apostles  were 
looking  for  place  and  preference  in  it,  but  like 
many  others  of  that  and  this  day,  including  Lhe 
reverend  doctor,  they  were  not  in  this  respect 
taught  of  God;  the  Apostles  looked  into  IHs 
sweet  face,  belield  His  miracles,  and  even  after 
His  resurrection  were  as  "fools  and  slow  of  heart 
to  believe  all  that  the  prophets  had  spoken." 
The  dying  thief  was  better  equipped  than  our 
author;  his  fund  of  Kingly  lore  surpassed  that 
of  the  great  Scottish  teacher,  for  as  a  thief  hang- 
ing by  His  side,  he  recognized  Jesus  as  the  com- 
ing King,  and  prayed  to  be  remembered  when 
He  should  come  in  His  Kingdom.  Jesus'  first 
coming  to  the  earth  was  with  reference  to  the 
question  of  sin  (Matt.  1-21).  His  second  coming 
to  the  earth  will  be  in  connection  with  the  King- 
dom, not  as  the  Lamb  wliich  taketh  away  the 
sin  of  the  world,  but  as  the  Lion  of  the  tribe 
of  Judah  exercising  Kingly  prerogatives  in  His 


omnipotence,  which  riglits  they  refused  Him 
when  He  came  in  weakness,  poverty  and  humili- 
ation (John  1:10-11). 

These  popular  taking  articles  of  Dr.  Watson 
in  McClure's  are  possessed  of  great  literary  merit, 
but  they  are  failures  as  moulders  of  right  tiioughts 
of  God;  unreliable  in  inference  and  assertion,  and 
found  by  careful  analysis  to  be  mere  figments 
of  a  diseased  brain,  very  poorly  illustrating  the 
reputed  knowledge  of  the  Word  of  this  eminent 
Scot,  hence  Dr.  Watson's  readable  lines  are  full 
of  pitfalls,  and  to  the  uninstructed,  fraught  with 
great  danger;  95  per  cent,  of  the  un  Spirit  taught 
will  accept  what  is  written  as  truth,  and  will 
not  subject  to  careful,  painstaking  comparison 
Dr.  Watson's  words  with  the  Words  of  the  Holy 
Ghost. 

The  advent  of  our  Lord  was  in  absolute  har- 
mony with  what  was  written  aforetime,  and  Dr. 
Watson's  insinuations  to  the  contrary  proves 
how  poorly  he  has  gathered  the  mind  of  the 
Spirit  who  has  fully  transcribed  the  details  of 
His  birth  as  to  time,  place  and  circumstances, 
involving  the  Virgin  Mother  with  sufficient  par- 
ticularity to  enable  the  Chief  Priests  and  scribes 
to  satisfy  the  wicked  Herod. 

Dr.  Watson's  eloquent  tribute  to  the  sover- 
eignty of  God  as  he.  traces  the  prophets  to  Him, 
causes  a  regret  for  presuming  to  offer  a  criticism 
of  the  writings  of  this  eminent  man:  but  he 
descends  from  the  sublime  to  the  ridiculous  when 
he  tells  us  that  the  mouth  of  Zacharias  was  open 
that  he  might  call  him  John,  when  the  converse 
is  true,  for  we  read,  "when  he  had  written  'His 
name  is  John,'  his  mouth  was  opened  immedi- 
ately, and  his  tongue  was  loosed,  and  he  spake 
and  praised  God."  Luke  l:6.M-64.  The  reverend 
John  Watson  cannot  be  relied  upon  when  he  is 
found  thus  corrupting  the  Word:  his  fancy  plays 
with  the  truth;  subjection  to  what  is  written 
and  all  that  is  written  furnishes  the  necessary 
fitness  for  witnessing  for  God  in  time  and  eter- 
nity. 


8 

The  Bible's  author  says  "there  was  a  man 
sent  from  (Jod  whose  name  was  John."  Any 
word  painting  in  derogation  of  this  testimony 
is  unworthy  of  consideration:  when  we  learn 
whence  John  came,  we  are  prepared  to  believe 
John's  words,  "l  saw  and  bear  record  that  this 
is  the  ISon  of  God."  John  taught  of  God  was 
qualified  to  recognize  the  S">n  of  Gud,  not  other- 
wise. Dr.  Watson  would  have  us  believe  that 
John  used  to  tremendous  advantage  his  eyes, 
ears,  feet,  solitude,  heart  and  mind,  as  he  made 
them  do  duty  in  tracing  out  the  God  man,  while 
John  traces  it  all  to  the  Father;  for  J(»hn  was 
neither  misled  by  sunshine  or  sh  idow  (John 
1:3.3).  Dr.  Watson  agrees  with  Henry  Drummond 
in  his  misleading  teacliing,  when  he  says  "that 
the  Inspiration  of  nature  luust  make  less  obscure 
the  inspiration  of  Revelation."  Dr.  Watson 
carries  other  perverse  marks  to  indicate  his  sym- 
pathies in  the  field  of  higher  criticism.  His 
references  to  the  two  Isaiah's  prove  him  "wise 
above  that  which  is  written."  John  looked  for 
Jesus  at  the  Jordan,  and  at  His  Baptism,  and 
found  Him  in  harmony  with  what  is  written. 
John's  knowledge  of  God's  mind,  and  His  prac- 
tical application  of  God's  inerrant  rule,  re- 
sulted in  his  recognition  of,  and  testimony  con- 
cerning Jesus,  as"  God's  Lamb,  "which  taketh 
away  the  sin  of  the  world."  John  arrogates 
nothing  to  liimself.  his  simple  faith  was  honored 
of  God,  and  God  honoring:  he  was  but  a  voice 
repeating  what  he  had  heard.  It  was  not  a  vision 
of  the  soul  after  the  Spirit,  he  was  not  arrested 
by  the  visible  holiness  of  Jesus,  and  thus  iden- 
tified Him  with  the  Christ;  not  his  fine  spiritual 
conception,  nor  the  inherent  glory  of  Jesus,  but 
the  application  of  the  truth  of  God  the  Father, 
to  the  Person  of  God  the  Son,  in  the  one  place 
of  the  Jordan,  and  in  the  singular  act  of  bap- 
tism. John's  imagination  played  no  part  in  the 
recognition  of  God's  Son,  for  he  had  the  word  of 
God,  which  with  John  tas  all  sutTicient.  Jesus 
was  proved  divine,  John  as  heaven  sent.    There 


9 

were  but  two  elements  involved  in  John's  bap- 
tism, the  fulfillment  of  all  righteousness,  and 
the  manifestation  of  Jesus  to  Israel.  (Matt.  3: 
15;  John  1:31. 

Doctor  John  Watson  links  the  name  of  Jesus 
with  all  that  is  worth  remembering  in  connec- 
tion with  the  lovely  villages  in  which  he  wrought 
and  taught  in  the  Holy  Land,  and  he  tells  us, 
no  matter  how  prosperous  or  famous  a  town 
might  be,  that,  unless  Jesus  honored  it  with  his 
presence,  it  could  have  no  place  in  sacred  his- 
tory. But  the  reviewer  is  not  disposed  to  offer 
criticism  concerning  any  mere  extravagance  of 
utterance,  which  seems  to  characterize  Dr.  Wat- 
son, so  long  as  he  is  found  to  be  in  harmony 
with  what  is  written  in  the  sacred  volume. 
However,  where  the  Holy  Spirit  is  silent,  man 
may  well  be  dumb,  with  feet  and  head  bare,  for 
the  ground  on  which  he  treads  is  holy  ground. 
There  are  full  too  many  flagrant  departures  from 
the  truth  to  occupy  our  time  upon  what  might 
be  considered  mere  trivialities. 

In  the  consideration  of  this  section  we  come 
to  Jesus  at  the  Jordan.  At  John's  baptism,  ac- 
cording to  Dr.  Watson,  in  the  sinners'  place. 
Jesus,  the  Lamb  of  God,  spotless  and  impeccable, 
now  manifested  to  Israel,  through  John's  bap- 
tism, was  without  sin,  though  in  all  points 
tempted  as  we  are— for  it  is  here  that  God  the 
Father  confesses  Him  as  one  in  whom  He  is  well 
pleased,  which  He  could  not  do  if  Jesus  had  sin 
in  Him  or  on  Him.  This  was  also  true  on  the 
Holy  Mount,  when  Jesus  spoke  of  His  exodus, 
which  he  would  shortly  accomplish  at  Jerusa- 
lem; for  the  Father  audibly  owned  Him,  in  whom 
He  was  still  well  pleased.  There  came  a  time 
when  our  sins  were  laid  on  Him,  for  the  Lord 
laid  on  him  the  ini'^uity  of  us  all.  "He  was  de- 
livered for  our  offen-ses."  On  that  dark  night 
when  Jesus  said  to  Judas,  "This  is  your  hour, 
and  the  power  of  darkness;"  then  the  satan-filled 
traitor  was  to  do  his  worst.  For  the  time  is  fast 
approaching  when  Jesus  is  to  be  numbered  with 


10 

tbe  transgressors,  "bear  our  griefs,  carry  our 
sorrows,  be  stricken,  smitten,  atHicted,  wounded 
for  our  transgressions,  bruised  for  our  iniquities: 
the  chastisement  of  our  peace  was  upon  Him, 
with  His  stripes  we  are  healed;"  the  Lord  is  to 
lay  on  Him  the  iniquity  of  us  all,  to  bruise  Him, 
put  Him  to  grief,  make  His  soul  an  offering  for 
sin,  for  He  is  to  pour  out  His  soul  unto  death, 
to  bear  the  sins  of  many,  made  to  be  sin.  He 
is  to  bear  our  sins  in  His  own  body  on  the  tree. 
Once  and  once  only  was  He  to  be  offered  to  put 
away  sin  by  the  sacrifice  of  Himself.  Christ,  our 
true  passover,  is  to  be  sacrificed  for  us:  the  cul- 
minating moment  is  hastening  with  rapid  stride, 
for  He  is  to  be  made  a  curse  for  us,  for  it  is 
written,  "cursed  is  every  one  that  hangeth  on 
a  tree."  Gal.  3:13.  His  atoning  work  began  and 
ended  at  Calvary;  the  darkness  and  terror  of 
this  awful  hour  betokened  the  averted  face  of 
the  Father,  when  the  Son  was  forsaken  by  God. 

Here  the  crisis  was  reached,  somewhere  in 
time,  between  the  compassionate  prayer  of  a 
suffering  Saviour,  "Father  forgive  them  for  they 
know  not  what  they  do,"  and  the  despairing, 
agonizing  cry,  "My  God,  My  God,  why  hast  Thou 
forsaken  Me."   . 

Jesus  bore  our  sins.  It  was  the  sin  on  the 
sinless  One,  that  shrouded  into  darkness  the 
noonday  sun,  that  rent  the  veil  of  the  temple 
in  twain;  that  made  the  earth  to  quake  and  the 
rocks  to  rend.  Jesus  condescended  to  the  sinners' 
place,  whom  He  came  to  save.  It  was  In  accord 
with  the  wiles  of  the  devil  from  the  beginning 
to  attack  the  Word  of  the  Father,  whether  in 
Eden  or  the  wilderness.  He  found  weakness  in 
the  first  Adam,  he  looked  for  it  in  the  last  Adam 
who  came  from  the  Jordan  with  tbe  benediction 
of  the  Father,  full  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Satan 
could  not  shake  the  confidence  of  the  Son  in  the 
Word  of  the  Father. 

How  precious  to  contemplate  One,  who, 
stooping  from  the  divine  height  to  the  limitless 
depth  into  which  sin  had  brought  depraved  man, 


11  > 

and  then  could  yet  touch  without  taint  every 
condition  of  the  sinner,  as  He  sought  to  woo  and 
win  him;  tempted  that  He  migiit  sympathize 
with  the  woman  accused  by  the  Pharisees,  in 
John  eight,  while  in  faithfulness  He  rebuked  her 
accusers;  that  He  might  deal  in  tenderness  with 
poor,  self-reliant,  Lord-denying  Peter,  as  he  ap- 
points time  and  place  for  a  meeting  on  the  res- 
urrection side  of  the  tomb. 

In  the  temptations  of  our  Lord,  as  recorded 
in  Matthew  and  Luke,  it  is  true  that  satan's  first 
temptation  was  directed  through  the  body  of  our 
Lord.  Hunaanly  speaking,  had  He  been  but  man. 
He  had  been  most  susceptible,  but  His  person- 
ality had  the  marks  of  Godhood;  these,  John  in- 
structed of  the  Father,  recognized;  Jesus  had 
been  in  no  spiritual  trance.  His  were  the  per- 
fections of  manhood,  the  fullness  of  the  God- 
man — a  consciousness  that  never  found  Him  off 
His  guard.  No  surprise  ever  awaited  Him.  Jesus 
chooses  from  his  own  armory  weapons  offensive 
and  defensive,  "it  is  written,"  must  suffice;  the 
foe  is  from  without,  whether  it  be  the  lust  of 
the  flesh,  the  lust  of  the  eye,  or  the  pride  of  life, 
for  from  within  there  is  no  response,  nothing  to 
fit  the  case. 

Dr.  WatsoQ  gives  expression  to  lofty  senti- 
ments in  the  following  elegant,  though  obscure 
way:  "Is  not  the  very  heart  of  religion  faith  in 
God,  a  faith  so  unreserved,  so  truthful  and  lov- 
ing, that  it  will  leave  the  person  absolutely  in 
the  presence  of  God?"  But  our  writer,  who 
abounds  in  aphorisms,  is  so  handicapped  by  his 
environments  that  he  will  not  allow  the  fifth 
book  of  Moses  to  furnish  the  sole  and  only  de- 
fence used  by  our  Lord  in  His  conflict  with  the 
evil  one.  One  could  bear  with  the  author  of 
''The  Life  of  the  Master"  in  his  sublime  raph- 
sodies  as  to  the  divinity  of  our  Lord,  if  he  did 
not  persistently  deal  with  the  divine  as  if  it 
were  merely  human;  we  might  soar  in  ecstatic 
joy  with  the  eloquent  Scotchman,  did  we  not 
find  hini  in  the  realm  of  fancy,  rather  than  faith, 


12 

affecting:  to  be  occupied  with  a  high  type  of  man- 
hood, while  dealing  with  the  only  true  concep- 
tion of  Godhood.  We  do  not  hesitate  to  affirm 
again  that  any  life  of  our  Lord  other  than  the 
inspired  Word  is  utterly  untrustworthy;  to  sub- 
stitute a  man's  imagination  is  to  mar  all,  and 
18  an  affront  to  the  Author,  God;  to  account  for 
God's  unique  acting  on  the  low  plane  of  mere 
man  is  God  dishonoring,  and  unworthy  a  place 
in  so-called  Christian  literature. 

Dr.  Watson's  third  paper  transcends  the  pre- 
vious ones  in  weakness;  the  relationships  sug- 
gested are  absurd  in  the  extreme;  that  of  Mary 
and  Salome  is  puerile,  and  furnishes  no  clue  to 
the  child  of  faitii  as  to  how  the  one  John  became 
the  disciple  of  the  other.  The  words  quoted 
by  the  doctor  as  introducing  John  to  Jesus  are 
weak  and  silly:  John  presents  Jesus  to  Israel  in 
words  most  memorable  and  by  the  Spirit's  power 
soul  convincing.  "Behold  the  Lamb  of  God 
which  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world,"  these 
are  too  tame  for  the  doctor.  It  is  not  purity  and 
sacritice  which  saves  the  world;  this  is  a  mere 
glittering  generality.  The  Kingdom  had  not 
begun;  the  very  opposite  is  proven,  for  when  the 
crowd  witnessed  His  miracles  and  would  come 
by  force  and  make  Him  King,  He  withdrew  to 
the  mountain  alone. 

There  is  no  warrant  in  the  Scripture  to  base 
an  argument  "that  almost  evf^ry  man  could  be 
reached  by  reason."  The  Pharisees  reasoned 
among  themselves  and  continued  in  alienation 
from  God.  There  is  but  one  way  to  reach  man, 
that  is  God's  way  in  the  gospel:  there  is  only 
one  way  to  reach  God,  faith  in  Jesus  Christ— 
"neither  is  there  salvation  in  any  other."  Jesus 
knew  the  issue  of  reasoning  and  rebuked  it;  of 
faith,  and  commended  it.  The  way  into  the 
Kingdom  of  God  pointed  out  to  Nicodemus  by 
Jesus  is  the  new  birth;  the  way  of  salvation  to 
the  characterless  Samaritan  is  to  drink  of  the 
water  of  life;  Nicodemus  and  the  woman  at  tlie 
well  confronted   obstacles   that  only   faith,   not 


13 

reason,  could  overcome:  Jesus  could  find  no  whit 
more  upon  which  to  build  in  the  Ruler  of  the 
Jews  than  in  the  Samaritan  adultress. 

But  Mr.  Watson  with  his  reason  would  trace 
the  issue  of  the  new  creation  to  "lasting  and 
spiritual  friendship:"  what  fallacy,  how  mislead- 
ing, how  soul-destroying,  are  Dr.  Watson's  hom- 
ilies. 

Again,  Jesus  entered  so  to  speak  His  official 
course  at  the  Jordan,  not  at  Cana  of  Galilee,  as 
assumed  by  Dr.  Watson.  The  beginning  of  the 
gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God  (Mark  1:1) 
John  and  the  Jordan,  the  voice  of  the  P'ather, 
the  baptism  of  water,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
these  are  familiar  to  the  Bible  student  and  as- 
sociated together  at  the  very  threshold  of  tlie 
official  life  of  Jesus  the  Anointed  One. 

Dr.  Watson,  as  usual,  loses  sight  of  the  only 
authority  for  basing  an  argument,  and  intro- 
duces his  own  ideas  in  place  of  the  Word,  weav- 
ing with  malice  prepense,  out  of  whole  cloth, 
line  after  line,  misleading  any  one  foolish  enough 
to  come  to  him  for  instruction,  for  he  spins  out 
of  his  fertile  brain,  without  a  warrant  in  the 
Word,  things  hidden  to  all  but  himself:  he  tells 
us  that  the  Mother  of  Jesus  and  family  had  re- 
moved to  Cana,  refers  with  flagrant  presumption 
to  the  elder  brothers  of  Jesus  to  account  for  the 
bride  of  Cana  as  absurdly  related  to  the  Lord; 
rudely  thrusting  fancy  into  the  face  of  fact; 
speaks  of  the  pleasant  traffic  between  Jesus  and 
the  children  of  Nazareth  but  lately  removed  to 
Cana,  and  so  fills  out  a  purely  Watsonlan  con- 
ception: tells  of  Jesus  flinging  some  gay  word 
to  these  children  as  they  loitered  by  His  door. 
How  worse  than  absurd  not  to  say  profane,  to 
speak  of  the  erstwhile  little  maid  as  the  child 
of  Jesus'  elder  brother,  and  the  bride  of  Cana's 
wedding  feast,  and  this  with  rude  effrontery,  in 
the  face  of  the  facts  as  found  in  Luke. 

Behold,  also,  the  strong  corroborative  proof 
of  the  fallacy  of  this  infamous  mis-statement 
of   Dr.  Watson  as  seen   in   Luke  2:7,  "and  she 


14 

brou^'ht  forth  her  first  born  Son."  Thus  the 
preacher  attacks  the  citadel  of  the  divine  in  the 
life  of  our  Lord,  and  seeks  to  place  Hini  side  by 
side  with  His  brethren,  all  younger  than  He,  but 
who,  according  to  John  seven,  did  not  believe 
in  J^lim.  and  were  like  the  wo"rld  about  them 
(John  7:5-7).  Tresurnably  this  feast  of  Cana  fur- 
nishes an  opportunity  lor  the  worldly  taught 
Scotchman  to  bring  in  the  inspiration  of  nature, 
and  in  a  deft  application  of  it,  eliminate  some 
of  the  so-called  obscurities  of  the  inspiration  of 
Revelation.  Such  fiction  is  accepted  by  men  as 
more  reasonable  than  faith,  and  in  ha^^te  they 
turn  away  from  the  truth  of  God;  led  captive 
by  satan  at  his  will,  they  plunge  heedlessly  into 
the  whirlpool  of  error,  find  no  pleasure  in  the 
profound  and  beautiful,  but  revel  in  the  gross, 
misleading  vaporings  of  men  who  call  themselves 
reverends  and  doctors,  but  who  yet  with  silly 
pride,  in  ignorance  become  blind  leaders  of  the 
blind. 

Dear  reader  do  not  permit  yourself  to  accept 
anything  about  the  Word  of  God  which  is  not 
found  in  the  Word  of  God.  Man  is  incapable  of 
adding  to  or  taking  from  the  Word  of  God  with- 
out debasing  the  creature  and  dishonoring  the 
Creator:  no  work  of  God  is  incomplete  in  any 
sense.  If  Dr.  Watson  can  add  to  it  with  profit 
or  take  from  it  in  wisdom,  not  a  line  of  it  is 
worth  considering.  Not  a  word  from  Genesis  to 
Revelation  worthy  a  moment's  thought.  If  any 
man  living  can  make  less  obscure  the  Book  of 
Revelation  by  the  application  of  reason  through 
the  sin  beclouded  church,  or  by  the  introduction 
of  natural  law  into  the  domain  of  the  spiritual 
world,  then  discard  the  whole  without  hesita- 
tion. There  was  but  one  way  for  Abel  and 
Abraham:  Moses  and  Elias:  Peter  and  Paul:  this 
was  the  way  of  faith,  with  God  its  Author  and 
finisher,  "For  without  faith  it  is  impossible  to 
please  Him."' 

Increased  privileges  and  extended  opportu- 
nities add  ever  increasingly  to  our  responsibili- 


15 

ties.  It  may  be  mucli  short  of  the  truth  to  say 
that  the  ilev.  John  Watson,  in  liis  "Life  of  the 
Master,"  has  not  less  than  a  million  readers. 
Not  one-thousandth  part  of  these  can  be  called 
discriminating  Bible  students,  nearly,  if  not  all, 
accepting  indifferently  any  religious  writing 
without  hesitation  and  without  question;  not 
one  hundred  subjecting  the  magazine  fiction  to 
anything  like  such  a  critical  comparison  with  the 
Bible  as  would  reveal  the  contrast  between  the 
truth  and  a  lie.  This  is  one  of  the  many  proofs 
of  alienation  to  God  among  men.  Perhaps  no- 
where is  this  so  apparent  among  classes  as  is 
found  among  the  ordinary  church  membership; 
the  legitimate  issue  of  the  seeds  of  error  sown 
broadcast  in  the  world  bat  constituting  the 
the  world's  estimate  of  truth  because  of  its  en- 
vironments. Reverend  and  doctor  being  synon- 
omous  with,  though  very  far,  often,  from  the 
Christian's  only  text  book,  and  this  will  con- 
tinue so  long  as  pious  lies  are  found  more  and 
more  readable  and  attractive:  no  disintegrating 
wedge  has  ever  operated  so  disastrously  in  sep- 
arating the  Christian  from  the  Bible,  as  the 
class  of  lies  represented  by  "Gyrus,"  and  the 
genus  of  writers  of  the  Shelden  stamp.  Any 
religious  book,  magazine  or  article  which  be- 
comes more  fascinating  to  the  Christian  than 
the  Bib;e,  is  a  curse,  and  proves  itself  of  satanic 
origin,  no  matter  who  the  human  author  may  be. 
Popular  articles  of  this  class  are  of  ever  in- 
creasing interest  to  a  careful  observer,  for  the 
reason  that  first  impressions  are  here  made  for 
weal  or  woe;  it  is  infinitely  easier  to  secure  a 
good  crop  from  virgin  soil  than  to  reap  with  joy 
the  seed  of  one's  sowing  in  a  field  pre-empted 
by  weeds.  A  humble  reviewer  of  what  is  osten- 
sibly a  good  book,  lays  himself  open  to  criticism 
and  principally  because  with  the  many  tinsel  is 
accepted  for  gold.  The  authenticity  of  sundry 
drama  and  poetry  is  considered  a  legitimate  field 
for  discussion,  but  to  insist  that  much  that  is 
dubbed  religious  is  devilish,  shocks  the  sensibil- 


16 

ities  of  many  who  claim  to  be  religious,  but  who 
know  nothing  of  Ood  or  the  Bible.  Magazine 
articles  of  late  years  have  made  more  familiar 
than  ever  the  great  ones  in  history;  tlie  names 
of  Cromwell,  Napoleon  and  others  have  become 
In  a  sense  common  to  many  men  and  women 
who  knew  little  of  them  from  the  hii^toric  pages. 
Behold  how  ready  the  writers  of  tlie  day  are  to 
criticise  any  departure  from  what  are  consideied 
the  facts  of  history;  all  have  the  same  data  to 
draw  from,  but  some  are  disposed  to  make  more 
of  trivialities  than  others.  Herein  is  the  trend 
of  the  age  seen,  writers  and  readers  accepting 
without  hesitation  anything  and  everything 
written  in  the  past  of  the  world's  celebrities, 
while  hesitating  on  the  threshold  of  Truth  to 
accept  what  was  written  aforetime  for  our  learn- 
ing in  the  Book  of  God;  and  much  more  fully 
attested  through  time  by  men  who  have  put  its 
promises  to  the  test,  than  any  work  of  man  down 
through  the  ages. 

"The  Life  of  the  Master"  can  get  its  con- 
ception from  one  source  only,  just  one  Book;  a 
hated  Book,  a  neglected  Book,  a  rejected  Book. 
If  the  "Life  of  the  Master"  was  divested  of 
the  fanciful,  while  given  in  tlie  simple  language 
of  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  which  would  give  it  all 
the  marks  of  truth  and  genuineness,  it  would  be 
no  more  popular  than  the  Book  it  claims  to  issue 
from.  All  found  in  the  old  Book  is  truth,  any- 
thing added  to  "what  is  written"  is  false. 
Though  "truth  is  stranger  than  fiction,"  yet  is 
invention  prized  the  more.  Where  thousands 
might  read  the  Bible  in  even  a  cursory  way,  with- 
out a  wrong  impression,  hundreds  of  thousands 
preferring  fancy,  are  misled  by  the  half  truths 
as  uttered  by  such  writers  and  preachers  as  Dr. 
Watson. 

Our  writer  says  "Jesus  was  born  in  Bethle- 
hem, He  was  educated  in  Nazareth,  He  was  cru- 
cified at  Jerusalem.  In  a  general  way  this  is 
true,  and  yet  we  are  told,  as  if  he  were  dealing 
with  the  life  of  a  mere  man,  that  "in  none  of 


17 

these  arrangements  had  He  any  voice."  What 
misleading,  soul-destroying  nonsense.  No  com- 
mon man — accepted  idea — can  be  introduced  with 
reference  to  the  God-man;  no  human  language 
adequately  expresses  the  truth  about  Jesus  Christ 
save  as  it  is  written  by  inspiration  of  (Jod.  To 
picture  Jesus  Christ  as  a  puppet,  so  handicapped 
by  weakness  as  to  be  at  the  mercy  of  man,  is 
the  veriest  presumption;  not  one  thing  is  known 
of  Him  for  twelve  years  from  His  birth;  a  glimpse 
at  Him  then  reveals  His  Godhood,  and  another 
eighteen  years  passes  without  a  word  of  IHm, 
when  he  is  introduced  as  the  Son  of  God,  and 
equal  with  God;  His  subjection  at  Nazareth  was 
in  harmony  with  His  obedience  to  the  cruel  tree 
and  to  death,  and  never  an  indication  of  weak- 
ness. Had  He  chosen  He  could  have  arrested  the 
opposition  to  Him  and  the  culmination  of  that 
conspiracy  in  the  garden.  Jesus  did  what  no 
other  man  ever  did.  He  forgot  Himself;  He  was 
at  Bethlehem,  at  Nazareth,  at  Jerusalem,  be- 
cause it  was  written  of  Him;  He  had  a  will,  but 
not  against  God,  for  He  was  God.  .The  parts  He 
acted  were  planned  with  Himself  in  council  in 
eternity,  and  while  He  was  recognized  as  the 
sent  One,  it  is  true,  also,  that  He  came  out  from 
God,  and  wrought  for  God  in  every  act,  whether 
in  subjection  in  life  or  in  triumphing  over  death. 
He  came  with  an  intelligent  apprehension  of 
whence  and  why  He  came,  and  the  work  He  came 
to  do— "Lo,  I  come  to  do  Thy  will,  O  God."  The 
infinite  for  the  moment  might  be  obscured  by 
what  appeared  to  be  but  finite,  yet  it  was  God 
acting  throughout,  after  the  council  of  His  own 
will. 

Dr.  Watson  admits  that  for  three  years  or 
so  he  could  arrange  His  life  as  he  pleased;  does 
he  forget  that  Jesus  had  all  the  marks  of  man- 
ifest Godhood  at  His  birth  when  worshipped  by 
angels,  by  shepherds  and  by  the  wise  men?  Did 
not  Simeon,  long  waiting  for  the  consolation  of 
Israel,  witness  to  His  divinity  as  he  made  ready 
to  depart,  when  at  forty  days  of  age  Jesus  was 


18 

revealed  to  him  by  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  tem- 
ple, as  maaifestly  as  He  was  identified  through 
John  at  the  Jordan  by  Goi  the  L\it,her  and  God 
the  Holy  Ghost?  Does  the  language  of  Simeon  in- 
dicate that  he  held  but  a  helpless  babe  in  his 
arms?  Instructed  ones  found  in  Him  all  "the 
brightness  of  (God's)  glory,  and  the  express  image 
of  His  Person."  Dr.  Watson  may  or  may  not 
admit  that  at  the  age  of  twelve  He  was  the  ar- 
biter of  His  own  action,  tho'  still  in  the  place 
of  weakness  and  apparent  subjection,  tho'  at  His 
own  volition,  pobsessed  of  power  without  limita- 
tions; for  He  was  maker,  upholder  and  owner  of 
the  universe  of  God,  yet  He  voluntarily  chose 
poverty's  vale.  He  had  power,  He  exercised  it 
for  all  but  Himself.  It  is  intiniiely  more  sensi- 
ble and  more  reasonable  to  reject  all  "that  is 
written"  as  the  veriest  bosh  than  to  tamper  with 
the  message  of  Go(t.  How  chapter  and  verse  will 
rise  up  as  the  veriest  goblins  to  these  men  who,  un- 
wisely and  officiously  corrupt  the  Word  with  their 
own  small  minds.  The  writer  of  this  simple  re- 
view would  rather  drop  into  a  nameless  grave  in 
some  dishonored  part  of  God's  acre,  than  to  in- 
ject his  meagre  mind  into  the  mind  of  God  as 
it  is  found  written  upon  the  page  of  God.  The 
great  God  is  not  an  intangible  essence,  but  an 
intelligent  personality— who  says  what  He  means 
and  means  what  He  says 

Dr.  Watson  speaks  of  Christ's  first  act  of 
freedom  as  involving  the  choice  of  a  city,  in 
which  to  fix  upon  for  the  sphere  of  His  labor 
and  the  centre  from  which  He  would  evangelize. 
According  to  our  learned  doctor,  Jesus  was  pos- 
sessed of  the  attractive  force  of  a  state  fair,  or 
had  the  elements  of  popularity  possessed  by  the 
site  of  a  modern  western  county  seat.  The  pre- 
sumption is,  according  to  his  short-sighted,  self- 
engendered  theory  that  they  had  their  respective 
committees  and  all  sorts  of  arguments  were  ad- 
vanced, together  with  a  premium  for  the  favor 
that  Jesus  stood  ready  to  bestow  upon  the  local- 
ity which  could  offer  the  greatest  inducements^ 


19 

How  God  dishonoring,  how  absurd;  for  such  a 
travesty  of  the  truth  to  issue  from  the  lips  of  a 
reverend  is  appalling;  not  a  word  in  all  the  Book 
indicates  a  movement  on  the  part  of  any  town 
or  city  to  induce  Jesus  to  make  His  home  there. 
Nazareth,  where  He  was  brought  up,  drove  Him 
from  their  synagogue  and  city  on  the  occasion^ 
probably,  of  His  first  sermon,  which,  but  for  His 
superhuman  power  had  ended  His  career.  (Luke 
4:28-29.) 

iSo  one  knows  why  He  chose  and  called 
Capernaum  His  own  city,  exalted  in  privilege 
by  His  presence,  and  blessed  through  His  mir- 
acles, this  city  of  His  choice,  who  showed  less 
appreciation  than  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  had  they 
been  so  blessed;  mentioned  in  all  the  gospels  six- 
teen tiiaes  oniy,  and  yet  Jesus  appjeciatefl  His 
privileges  in  His  own  city  so  little  that  He  would 
not  accept  the  place  as  one  of  her  children,  but 
preferred  as  a  stranger  to  pay  tribute,  and  they 
appreciated  Him  less  than  He  did  them  in  asking 
Peter  if  his  Master  did  not  pay  tribute.  (Matt. 
17'.2i-27.)  Jerusalem  never  wanted  Him.  never 
bid  for  His  coming,  formed  aconspira«y  early  in 
His  brief  otlicial  life  so  that  He  couJd  not  walk 
in  Jewry,  for  the  Jews  sought  lo  kill  Him  (John 
7:1);  not  a  reason  is  assigned  by  our  blessed  Lord 
for  choosing  Capernaum;  almcst  every  argu- 
ment introduced  in  this  pretended  life  of  the 
Master  is  based  upon  shallow  subterfuge,  to  the 
utter  disgust  of  every  man,  woman  and  child  who 
reads  and  believes  what  is  in  the  Bible. 

We  are  told  that  Jerusalem  was  to  be  His 
by  the  conquest  of  the  cross;  divested  of  the 
silliness  of  such  a  sentence  we  ask  how  can  men 
commit  such  sacrilege  apparently  in  the  name 
of  the  Lord?  Jerusalem  hated  Him,  conspired 
against  Him,  slew  Him;  they  called  Him  Beel- 
zebub while  He  lived  and  He  blessed  them. 
They  traced  His  power  and  compassionate  use  of 
that  power  to  the  devil,  and  after  His  igno- 
minous  death  they  referred  to  Him  as  "that 
deceiver."    (Matt.  27:63.)    So  far  as  we  know  He 


20 

did  not  pass  a  night  in  Jerusalem,  save  the  part 
of  one,  perhaps,  when  arrested  and  brought  by 
force  from  Gethsemane  to  Annas.  "He  came 
unto  His  own  (possessions)  and  His  own  (people) 
received  Him  not."  He  was  born  in  Judea,  but 
became  a  Galilean  by  adoption:  but  neither  had 
a  place  nor  a  welcome  for  Him. 

Tbe  reviewer's  path  is  sometimes  a  thorny 
one,  his  purposes  not  understood;  his  intentions, 
whatever  he  may  avow,  misconstrued.  A  review 
of  "The  Life  of  the  Master'"  is  found  interesting 
or  otherwise  in  proportion  to  the  interest  had 
in  the  theme,  and  the  time  given  to  its  consid- 
eration. A  glance  at  the  review  or  a  superficial 
examination  of  the  original  subject  is  of  little 
value.  What  we  have  before  us  purports  to  com- 
prehend the  life  of  the  God  man,  Christ  Jesus; 
if  it  comes  short  of  that  which  the  caption  in- 
volves, it  is  of  little  worth:  neither  the  name  of 
the  writing  nor  the  fame  of  the  writer  can  save 
it  from  oblocjuy.  The  reviewer  would  not  bring 
his  bias  to  warp  his  vision  as  he  scans  the  pages 
of  this  popular  story,  but  without  prejudice  he 
would  gather  any  gems  prone  upon  the  surface 
or  hidden  beneath  the  word  painting  which  may 
enfold  them.  The  impressions  made  in  the  re- 
view of  this  wonderfully  worded  series,  with  its 
false  and  true  statements,  have  been  varied — 
surprise,  pain,  admiration,  sorrow  and  disgu  t 
have  clamored  for  recognition  as  Dr.  Watson's 
lines  have  been  examined.  The  reader  is  not  ad- 
vised to  reject  "The  Life  of  the  Master"  as  un- 
trustworthy, until  he  has  subjected  the  same  to 
a  careful  comparison  with  that  which  "is  writ- 
ten" and  found  it  so.  If  these  simple  reviews 
will  drive  men  to  the  application  of  God's  in- 
errant  scale,  which  will  surely  test  the  value  of 
these  papers,  he  will  have  accomplished  his  pur- 
pose, otherwise  they  will  have  little  worth. 

One  can  but  glance  at  the  word  pictures  as 
painted  by  this  master  in  rhetoric,  in  fiction, 
charming;  in  history,  misleading;  in  inspiration, 
profane.     It  will  be  impossible  to  consider  in  de- 


21 

tail  this  travesty  upon  truth  in  our  limited 
space.  The  purpose  is  to  test  by  the  only  correct 
rule  what  is  found  in  glancing  here  and  there. 
If  our  writer  was  a  common  every  day  man  the 
world  would  accept  it  as  a  figment  of  the  ima- 
gination and  pass  on  unimpressed  by  it,  he  might 
read  his  great  fund  of  fiction  into  the  divine  Rec- 
ord and  furnish  no  surprise  to  any  one,  he  might 
adventure  rough  shod  into  the  circumscribed 
limits  of  God's  domain  where  He  (God)  is  pleased 
to  tread  alone,  and  no  one  would  say  Him  nay; 
but  our  reverend  writer,  in  a  certain  sense  pre- 
sumes to  stand  for  God,  and  his  office  and  sub- 
ject, in  a  certain  way  cause  his  utterances  to  be 
accepted  as  authoratative,  his  vantage  ground 
thus  assured  causes  him  to  appear  to  the  unin- 
structed    as  God's  oracle. 

Men  were  in  alienation  to  God,  and  Jesus 
came  to  make  peace  with  God,  to  establish  a 
basis  for  atonement;  through  His  death  and  res- 
urrection, Jesus  did  not  stoop  to  the  sinner's 
place  to  white-wash  him.  and  apply  some  semi- 
christianizing,  humanizing,  civilizing  process, 
which  might  appear  to  men  to  lift  some  nearer 
to  God  than  others;  but  His  coming,  His  dying, 
His  rising,  was  to  lift  men  out  of  the  awful  mess 
into  which  through  sin  they  had  fallen.  God's 
purpose  in  renewing  man  was  to  cause  him  to 
conform  to  the  image  of  His  Son  (Rom.  8:29). 
This  explains  the  presence  of  the  sinless  One 
among  sinners;  without  Him  all  was  lost,  with 
Him  the  two  classes  were  seen  in  bold  relief, 
saved  and  lost,  reconciled  and  unreconciled,  all 
the  latter  lost.  Some  knew  it;  the  ninety  and 
nine  secure  in  their  ignorance  and  self-right- 
eousness, but  when  Jesus  came  they  could  have 
no  cloak  for  their  sin.  The  popular  idea,  and 
probably  that  held  by  our  Scotch  author,  involves 
a  bloodless  atonement;  it  originated  with  Peter, 
and  is  of  the  devil  (Mark  8:31-33).  It  does  not 
require  a  heresy  hunter  to  detect  marks  of  dis- 
cipleship  in  this  school  of  error,  when  he  says, 
"when  a  Jew  desires  to  express  his  dislike  of  any 


22 

man  with  whose  theology  he  does  not  agree,  he 
calls  him  a  Samaritan,  just  as  people  of  our  day 
are  apt  to  call  any  teacher  a  Unitarian  who  does 
not  hold  their  theory  of  atonement.'"  Why  atone- 
ment forsooth?  if  he  were  not  supersensitive 
along  these  lines.  The  honest  searcher  after 
truth,  loyal  to  what  he  finds  in  the  only  book 
which  can  intelligently  deal  with  the  question, 
will  accept  no  man's  theory,  when  the  Holy 
Scriptures  tell  us  "He  was  delivered  for  our  offen- 
ses, and  raised  again  for  our  justification"  (Rom. 
4:25)  he  believes  no  departure  possible  either  in 
faith,  precept  or  practice  from  the  testimony  of 
God,  when  we  read  ''Christ  died  for  our  sins  ac- 
cording to  the  Scriptures. 

These  simple  passages  are  unanswerable,  and 
corrupting  theories  of  the  Word  of  God  cannot 
be  accepted  even  though  it  shocks  the  divines. 
Dr.  Watson  tells  us  that  Jesus  was  of  pure  Jewish 
blood;  it  is  admitted  that  if  Jesus  was  not  a  Jew 
by  birth,  he  was  by  circumcision;  but  humanly 
speaking  Jesus  was  no  more  a  Jew  than  was  Tim- 
othy, whose  father  was  a  Greek.  The  national- 
ity comes  from  the  father,  not  ihe  mother;  His 
Father  was  God,  from  whence  the  purely  divine, 
not  Jewish  strains  issued;  most  likely  His  visage 
or  garb  betokened  Him  a  Jew.  The  woman  of 
Samaria  recognized  Him  as  one  by  His  speech, 
or  in  some  such  way,  but  it  cannot  be  said  that 
He  was  of  pure  Jewish  blood.  Incidentally  He  is 
proven  a  Jew  in  "coming  to  His  own"  (see  also 
Rom.  9:5)  but  pure  strains  are  sought  in  the  sire; 
of  Himself  He  could  say  "I  proceeded  forth  and 
came  from  the  Father."  God  was  His  Father, 
Jesus  His  only  begotten  Son,  hence  the  language 
used  has  no  foundation  in  fact;  besides  while  He 
had  all  the  marks  of  Godhood,  He  got  through 
Joseph  His  ostensible  father.  His  nationality 
from  Abraham,  His  kingship  from  David.  Could 
His  human  descent  be  traced  in  the  face  of  what 
is  written  through  Joseph  and  Mary,  He  could 
not  be  said  to  be  of  pure  Jewish  blood,  which 
Dr.  Watson  could  easily  know  had  he  taken  time 


23 

to  examine  the  record,  for  we  know  that  He  was, 
humanly  speaking,  of  Jewish,  Gentile,  lowly,* 
holy,  royal,  perfeco,  imperfect,  mortal,  immortal 
descent.  He  could  trace  His  lineage  by  name 
through  two  Jewesses,  two  Gentiles,  two  harlots, 
and  added  to  these  an  adultress,  which  brought 
Him  after  nature  from  the  lowest  state  of  human 
society,  but  He  could  trace  with  ease  His  true 
place  into  God's  family,  even  as  a  man,  and  to 
Godhood  at  the  Jordan  and  the  Holy  Mount. 
While  as  God  He  became  a  compas'^ionate  Saviour, 
as  man,  His  human  relationship  brought  Him  in 
touch  with  sin  and  shame. 

Again  we  are  misled  by  our  learned,  man- 
taught  writer,  as  to  the  Samaritan  problem;  he 
tells  us  the  Samaritan  was  too  much  in  evidence 
to  be  ignored.  How  so?  The  record  disproves  It. 
Samaria;  Samaritan  and  its  plural,  occur  in  the 
gospels  but  thirteen  times;  some  of  these  are  re- 
petitions. The  woman  of  Samaria,  the  Samari- 
tan leper  and  He  of  Luke  ten,  are  the  only  personal 
references,  they  rarely,  if  ever,  intruding  upon 
our  Lord.  The  leper  got  cleansing  and  thanked 
Him;  the  woman  of  Sychar  heard  His  message 
and  received  it.  His  own  unique  service  in  the 
world  He  exemplified  in  the  other:  yet  in  pass- 
ing from  Judea,  ''He  must  needs  go  through 
Samaria,'"  intruding  His  own  blessed  presence 
upon  those  whom  Jews  with  the  purest  blood 
despised  as  Gentile  dogs.  Yet,  with  all,  the  doc- 
tor is  touchingly  tender,  as  he  links  Jesus  of 
Nazareth  with  the  hated  Samaritan;  and  still 
the  doctor  is  bound  to  be  a  misleader  in  sacred 
things;  at  Jacob's  well  amidst  its  hallowed  pre- 
cincts, he  seeks  to  leave  impressions  for  which  he 
has  no  warrant,— edifying  here,  misleading  there, 
thus  never  reliable;  for  in  grouping  these  two 
elements  as  of  a  common  Father,  he  would  teach 
the  deceiving  heresy  of  the  Fatherhood  of  God. 
Speaking  of  the  illiberality  of  the  Jew  in  his 
hatred  of  the  Samaritan,  he  says  "why  in  the 
name  of  God  and  reason  should  he  rail  at  his 
brother?"  for  beneath  all  the  diversities  of  the 


24 

race  and  creed  lies  the  deeper  unity  of  human 
brotherhood."  Human  brotherhood,  not  one  but 
two  incongruous  parts  at  the  beginning,  tlie  one 
in  alienation  headed  by  Eve's  tirst  born  son, 
(Jain,  the  other  by  Abel,  the  man  of  faith. 
These  diverse  elements  have  been  dominated  by 
good  on  the  one  hand  and  evil  on  the  other  to 
the  present.  The  Fatherliood  of  God  embracing 
only  such  as  have  been  introduced  into  God's 
family  througli  faith  in  Jesus  Christ:  the  other 
in  alienation  to  God,  of  their  father  the  devil; 
the  one  exemplified  by  the  pure,  unselfish,  gentle, 
Christ-like  woman  missionary  in  inland  China, 
the  other  by  the  ignorant,  blood-thirsty  Boxer, 
who  would,  in  ignorance  and  hate,  murder  and 
defile  her:  or  in  the  greed-getting  Englishman's 
invasion  of  South  Africa,  with  as  deep  but  more 
intelligent  hate,  to  kill  and  destroy  in  a  more 
modern  warfare,  his  professedly  Christian  bro- 
ther, the  Boer. 

Dr.  Watfcon  belittles  dogma,  quotes  Jesus 
as  indifferent  to  doctrine,  wiiile  despising  ritual, 
charging  that  He  suffered  persecution  because 
He  would  not  come  to  terms  with  religious  so- 
ciety. If  dogma  involves  authoritative  utter- 
ance, "never  man  spake  like  this  man."  "He 
spoke  as  one  having  authority.''  See  John  3:36, 
5:24,  6:47. 

As  to  ritual,  He  proved  Himself  a  Jew  in 
conformity  to  its  requirements  as  a  babe,  child, 
man.  meeting  every  demand  of  the  law;  circum- 
cised the  eighth  day,  keeping  the  Passover  His 
last  night.  It  was  not  dogma  nor  ritual,  but 
hypocrisy  which  separated  our  Lord  from  the 
Pharisees.  He  came  to  save,  not  to  consort  with 
all  the  diverse  religionists  of  the  day  to  prove 
His  breadth,  nor  to  pamper  their  pride  by  laud- 
ing their  empty  traditions.  If  they  wanted  any- 
thing of  Him  they  could  learn  it  at  His  feet,  as 
sinners;  but  they  refused  the  gilt  of  eternal  life, 
while  the  common  people  heard  Him  gladly. 

Again  we  are  told,  without  scriptural  author- 
ity,   that   Jesus    passed   by   the   respectable    in 


25 

Jericho,  and  passed  the  night  with  Zaccheus,  a 
statement  which  might  pass  unnoticed  if  the 
same  measure  of  mis-statement  did  not  charac- 
terize almost  every  utterance  of  this  Scotch  Doc- 
tor of  Divinity.  He  spealis  of  men  being  per- 
plexed with  Jesus;  perplexed  because  rebuked  in 
faithfulness  by  the  One  who  could  read  the  heart; 
there  was  no  perplexity  but  that  which  issued 
from  unbelief;  there  was  no  perplexity  with 
Mary  of  Bethany;  there  may  have  been  with  the 
rich  young  Ruler.  Theret-was  no  r.oom  for  per- 
plexity where  there  was  receptivity;  religious 
bigots  despised  Him;  sin  sick  sinners  needing 
compassion  received  it. 

Our  Doctor  in  one  of  his  flights  pays  a  sweet 
tribute  to  Je&us  as  He  turns  sinners  to  saints, 
a  beautiful  gleam  of  white  light  amidst  many 
shadows,  but  uninstructed  in  the  Word,  untaught 
hy  the  Spirit,  he  continues  to  handle  the  Word 
of  God  deceitfully  as  he  refers  to  Jesus  and  the 
Pharisees.  Jesus  calls  them  whitened  sepulchres, 
denounced  them  while  sitting  in  Moses'  seat  and 
binding  burdens  on  men  which  they  would  not 
move  with  one  of  their  lingers.  Yet  we  are  told 
that  they  weie  not  bad,  but  simply  looked  at 
things  from  a  different  standpoini.  He  tells  us 
that  one  day  when  the  critics  were  especially 
severe,  Jesus  seized  the  occasion  and  made  His 
great  apologia  in  the  titleenth  of  Luke.  In  this 
connection  Jesus  is  made  to  say  that  "the  sinners 
were  certainly  waste  and  dangerous  stuff  *  *  * 
but  it  was  culpable  wabte,  the  result  of  imper- 
fect religious  processes,"  but  nowhere  is  Jesus 
found  to  give  expression  to  such  sentiments. 
Jesus  did  not  regard  them  as  mere  integral  parts 
of  the  body  poluic,  dangerous  to  its  peace,  need- 
ing to  be  civilized  and  christianized  lor  the  sake 
of  the  community.  Jesus  never  referred  to  them 
as  a  dangerous  class  because  of  their  disposition 
to  prey  upon  others,  or  likely  to  become  a  curse 
to  any  but  themselves 

Keligion  operated  in  Jesus'  day  as  an  insu- 
perable obstacle  in  the  way  of  reconciliation  to 


26 

God;  sinners  saw  tlirough  it  and  refused  it.  No 
processes  can  operate  to  elevate  men  nearer  to 
God  than  that  which  is  involved  in  their  birth, 
born  after  the  fiesh,  children  of  wrath,  born  after 
the  Spirit,  children  of  God;  the  gift  of  God  is 
eternal  life,  not  religion.  The  more  religion  men 
get,  the  more  radical!}'  they  become  what  Dr. 
Watson  calls  "dangerous  stuff." 

The  Master  is  said  to  make  His  appeal 
through  reason,  and  yet  His  presence  in  the 
world,  His  methods  were  all  above  reason  and 
not  susceptible  of  being  understood  on  any  hy- 
pothesis suggested  by  man.  Pie  never  asked  for 
men's  support,  never  appealed  to  men  to  stand 
by  Him  or  approve  Him;  what  He  did  ask  was 
that  they  would  come  to  Him,  receive  Him  not 
because  His  view  was  most  fitting,  but  because 
they  were  lost  without  Him;  He  never  made  a 
defense  of  Himself  or  His  principles,  or  offered 
an  apology  for  His  action. 

The  silly  twaddle  about  the  prodigal  has  the 
merit  of  originality.  He  came  back  neither  hon- 
est, humble  nor  peniteni:  among  the  swine  in 
his  hunger,  wretchedness  and  tilth  he  remem- 
bered three  things— his  father's  hired  servants, 
abundance  of  bread  accessible  to  them,  and  his 
perishing  condition,  followed  by  a  three-fold 
purpose  as  to  where  he  would  go,  what  he  would 
do,  and  say,  what  he  would  be;  the  height  of 
his  ambition  being  to  get  into  his  father's  house, 
and  with  his  father's  servants,  that  he  might 
get  the  bread  which  they  had,  and  to  spare. 
Not  a  thought  above  his  poor  empty  stomach: 
he  was  not  looking  for  a  son's  place,  but  a  ser- 
vant's place;  while  the  father  was  occupied  v»ith 
the  son,  just  as  he  was;  knew  what  was  in  his 
heart,  but  was  longing  to  provide  the  kiss,  the 
robe,  the  ring,  the  shoes:  there  was  no  opening 
for  his  son  among  the  servants,  but  there  was 
In  his  father's  heart.  All  this  is  the  Father's 
provision  in  grace,  not  the  reward  of  merit, 
neither  is  it  a  romance  as  the  doctor  would  have 
it,  but  the  Spirit's  testimony  of  a  certain   man 


27 

with  two  sons,  reoeated  by  our  Lord  to  tlie 
Pharisees,  who  stood  unmoved  so  far  as  the  rec- 
ord j?oes.  ISo  softer,  no  more  tender,  no  kind- 
lier feelinj?s,  they  hated  Him  withoutacause,  they 
were  unmoved  by  His  faithfulness,  they  rejected, 
despised,  slew  Him.  Jesus  had  never  followed 
the  story  of  the  prodigal's  father,  with  Luke 
sixteen  had  a  change  been  wrought  in  His  ene- 
mies. 

The  Scotch  doctor  is  an  inventive  genius, 
abounds  in  originalities,  perhaps  nowhere  does 
he  reach  his  climacteric  in  the  absurd  as  in 
connection  with  the  woman  of  John  eight,  and 
the  selection  of  a  publican  as  one  of  the  twelve, 
he  introduces  his  readers  to  St.  Mary  Magdalene. 
Dr.  Watson  is  not  symmetrical:  his  disposition 
to  fly  off  at  tangents  and  to  follow  abnormal 
lines  in  the  discussion  of  the  wonderful  charac- 
ter he  professes  to  write  of,  shows  him  but  poorly 
taught  in  the  Word. 

The  realm  of  an  imagination,  inflamed  by  a 
loose  rein  thrown  to  the  consci«nce,  with  slack 
conceptions  erf  the  Divine  in  inspiration,  coupled 
with  a  moral  judgment,  untutored  by  the  Spirit, 
is  an  unsafe  and  an  unsound  place  into  which 
scholars  in  God's  school  may  be  safely  introduced. 
Let  the  Bible  be  divested  of  its  sanctity:  let  vain 
foolish  man  imagine  that  he  may  invade  its 
sacred  precincts  without  marring  its  symmetry 
and  beauty  with  his  silly  utterances:  for  if  you 
would  bring  God's  book  down  to  the  level  where 
man  has  been  a  factor  in  its  production,  then 
you  at  once  rob  it  of  its  grandeur  and  majesty. 

Rev.  John  Watson  at  his  pleasure  drops  from 
its  wonderful  pages  its  noblest  utterances  and 
in  turn  injects  into  its  lovlely  confines,  his  own 
silly  details,  which  mars  the  whole  and  reacts 
upon  himself,  though  it  may  cause  him  to 
contemplate  with  pride  the  improvements 
he  thinks  he  has  wrought,  while  the  faithful 
Bible  student,  with  increasing  sadness,  beholds 
the  fair  and  lovely  page  debauched  by  the  ruth- 
less and  presumptuous  hand  of  man.     Thus  we 


find  Doctor  Watson  without  qualification  or  fit- 
ness to  write  of,  or  deal  helpfully  with  the  life 
of  the  most  important  Person  in  the  whole  uni- 
verse of  God.  To  ruthlessly  t'ov^e  his  way  into 
this  Holy  of  Holies,  and  trample  under  foot  the 
sacred  and  heavenly  as  it  clusters  about  His  sa- 
cred Person,  is  brutal.  The  beautiful  and  the 
true  which  his  friends  admire  in  him  will  not 
compensate  for  the  persistent,  recl^less,  inex- 
cusable departure  from  the  truth  which  per- 
meates near  and  remote  almost  every  part  of  what 
he  presumes  to  call  "The  Life  of  the  Master." 

The  realm  of  mystery  and  apparent  obscurity 
which  is  common  in  many  parts  of  the  Divine 
utterance,  suggests  no  occasion  for  embarrass- 
ment or  hesitation  to  the  fascinating  IScotch 
preacher,  who  with  ease  and  facility  assumes  to 
supply  all  the  needful  explanation.  But  "ven- 
geance is  mine,  I  will  repay,  saith  the  Lord''— 
"his  mischief  will  return  upon  his  own  head,  and 
his  violent  dealing  come  down  upon  his  own 
pate."'  The  danger  would  be  small,  compara- 
tively, if  his  readers  could  be  induced  to  place 
his  wares  in  God's  scales;  if  they  could  be  made 
to  line  them  up  with  a  "Thus  saith  the  Lord," 
then  the  true  and  the  false  would  be  apparent, 
but  thousands  accept  such  writings  as  in  har- 
mony with  what  is  written,  only  to  find  them- 
selves alienated  from  God  and  His  most  Holy 
Word.  God  has  revealed  all  men  need  to  know, 
to  add  to  it  or  take  from  it  is  of  the   evil  one. 

Distinctions  through  priestly  caste,  heredi- 
tary rank  or  vast  endowments  as  admired  by  men, 
had  no  place  with  Jesus  Christ.  Two  classes  con- 
fronted Him,  saved  and  lost;  those  wlio  were 
for  Him,  and  those  who  were  against  Him.  Tlie 
latent  enmity  in  man  was  awakened  by  God's 
presence  in  the  Person  of  His  Son,  the  Spirit- 
born  and  Spirit- taught  believed  in  Him,  received 
Him. 

Half  truths  are  all  lies,  and  correspondingly 
more  vicious.  Jesus  was  not  averse  to  respect- 
ability; His  wonderful  interview  with  Nicodemus 


29 

was  as  fruitful  as  His  equally  marvellous  dealing 
with  the  woman  of  Sychar's  well;  faithfulness 
characterized  Him  with  the  Ruler  of  the  Jews 
and  the  Samaritan  adultress;  neither  really 
more  susceptible  to  His  teachings  than  the  other. 
The  man  who  came  to  Him  by  night  had  no 
more  moral  fitness  to  receive  Him  than  the 
woman  of  Samaria,  of  whom  He  asked  a  drink 
at  high  noon.  Jesus  had  but  one  gift  to  bestow 
upon  respectable  and  outcast,  "for  there  is  no 
difference."  By  one  man  sin  entered  the  world 
and  death  by  sin,  and  so  death  passed  upon  all 
men  for  that  all  have  sinned;  one  man  brought 
in  sin  and  every  man  begotten  through  him  had 
the  same  characteristics;  one  Man  brought  in 
life,  there  was  no  life  apart  from  Him,  no  one 
good  enough  without  it,  none  too  bad  to  be  out 
of  reach  of  it.  "The  wages  of  sin  is  death,  but 
the  gift  of  God  is  eternal  life  thro'  Jesus  Christ 
our  Lord." 

Jesus  had  nothing  of  the  natural  antipathy 
of  man,  who  simply  judged  by  what  he  could 
see;  He  hated  hypocrisy  and  He  only  could  see 
the  heart;  while  He  hated  sin,  He  loved  the 
sinner;  when  He  died  it  was  to  save  sinners,  re- 
spectable and  otherwise.  Jesus  proved  His  wil- 
lingness to  receive  the  prodigal;  the  elder  brother 
pilloried  himself  with  all  the  other  respectables, 
who  conspired  to  kill  the  Lord  because  of  Hi» 
readiness  to  save  the  lost.  The  respectables 
joined  hands,  Pharisees,  Herodians,  Sadducees, 
Romans,  to  compass  His  death  because  He  re- 
ceived sinners  and  ate  with  them.  The  right- 
eousness which  the  respectables  brought  to  John 
Baptist-  was  also  brought  to  Jesus  and  rejected 
by  Him;  for  in  their  ignorance  they  refused  to 
submit  themselves  to  the  righteousness  of  God 
while  they  went  about  to  establish  their  own 
righteousness.  The  Pharisee  extolled  his  virtues; 
the  Publican  saw  himself  a  sinner  the  one  under 
conviction,  the  other  in  the  temple  of  God,  but 
not  brought  under  the  power  of  God,  and  Jesus 
was  no  more   affected  by  the  Pharisee's  recital 


30 

of  his  virtues  than  by  their  comparison  with  the 
alleged  vices  of  the  Publican.  That  which 
pleased  the  Lord  and  justified  the  Publican  was 
found  in  his  takintr  his  place  as  a  sinner.  In  the 
estimation  of  men  one  was  worse  than  the  other, 
but  they  were  both  alike  until  the  one  took  his 
place  as  a  sinner.  This  grave  him  the  precedence 
and  preference  with  God.  (Luke  19:10.)  These 
distinctions  still  exist,  practically  the  Publican 
was  no  worse  than  the  Pharisee.  Their  lives, 
in  their  alienation  to  God,  had  simply  taken  on 
and  reflected  their  environments,  one  in  religion, 
the  other  without,  both  equally  godless.  If  the 
Pharisee  had  known  the  hoUowness  of  his  own 
unreconciled,  sinful  nature,  he  never  would  have 
flattered  himself  and  slandered  his  neighbor. 
The  alleged  extortion  and  injustice  of  the  one, 
no  more  offensive  in  the  sight  of  God  than  the 
,  outbreaking  hate  and  hypocrisy  of  the  other,  the 
conduct  of  the  Publican  not  nearly  so  subversive 
of  the  Jewish  national  life  as  the  bigotry  and 
self-righteousness  of  the  Pharisee  who  pretended 
to  stand  for  God.  The  most  despicable  class  in 
all  the  universe  is  found  among  those  who  wear 
religion  as  a  cloak,  but  whose  hypocritical  lives 
speak  louder  than  their  profession;  what  they  are 
is  not  what  they  seem;  among  this  class  are  those 
who,  in  their  ignorance,  grade  sin  in  the  face  of 
what  is  written  "whatsoever  is  not  of  faith  is 
sin"  and  to  him  who  knoweth  to  do  good,  and 
doeth  it  not  to  him  it  is  sin."  The  Pharisees 
condemned  themselves  in  judging  and  condemn- 
ing the  Publicans.  The  Lord  Jesus  was  not 
swayed  for  a  moment  by  the  estimate  they  placed 
upon  those  whom  they  desired  to  stigmatize  as 
the  "hated  class,"  and  whose  unsupported  ex- 
parte  testimony  Dr.  Watson  affects  to  believe 
and  stands  ever  ready  to  give  it  currency.  The  at- 
titude of  the  Pharisees  toward  Him  who  was  the 
express  image  of  God,  and  who  had  come  out 
from  God,  furnished  but  a  poor  equipment  for 
fitting  them  for  sitting  in  the  place  of  judge. 
These  ultra  respectable  religionists,  who  cursed 


31 

the  land  "hated  Ilim  without  a  cause;"'  they 
covenanted  with  Judas  for  the  price  of  a  slave 
for  the  betrayal  of  One  who  came  to  bless  and 
save. 

Our  learned  doctor  in  his  efforts  to  discount 
the  testimony  of  Jesus,  "who  needed  not  that 
any  should  testify  of  man,  for  He  knew  what 
was  in  man,"  stands  ready  to  degrade  to  the 
lowest  human  level  the  Publican,  and  elevate  to 
the  highest  mortal  conception  the  Pharisee,  and 
this  in  the  face  of  the  anathemas  of  the  Son  of 
God,  pronounced  against  them.  John  denounced 
them  as  a  generation  of  vipers  before  Jesus  had 
testified  against  them:  what  have  we  then?  The 
Pharisees  against  the  Publican;  the  Lord  against 
the  Pharisees!  Let  us  examine  the  score;  we 
have  the  character  of  the  witnesses,  whose  tes- 
timony could  be  easily  impeached;  according  to 
the  slanderous  attack  in  the  temple,  in  the  pre- 
tense of  a  prayer,  offered  by  the  Pharisee;  it  is 
only  by  inference  that  this  part  of  his  address 
could  appear  to  involve  the  Publican  whom  he  in- 
troduces this  wise,  and  may  or  may  not  apply  to 
him.  "Gcd  I  thank  Thee  that  I  am  not  as  other 
men,  extortioners,  unjust,  adulterers,  or  even  as 
this  Publican."  For  the  sake  of  argument  let 
us  accept  the  whole  as  applying  to  the  "hated 
one'  who  stood  afar  off  and  cried  "God  be  mer- 
ciful to  me,  a  sinner,"  but  who,  rather  than  the 
other,  went  down  to  his  house  justified;  after 
all,  it  is  not  adultery,  injustice  or  extortion  that 
shuts  men  out  of  heaven,  but  unbelief.  This 
unbelief  was  the  heritage  of  the  Pharisee,  while 
the  key  that  unlocked  the  kingdom  of  God,  and 
which  admitted  the  Publican,  was  faith,  which 
the  religionist  lacked. 

There  is  nothing  to  convict  Zaccheus  in  his 
confession;  it  was  meet  having  received  Jesus 
that  he  should  confess  his  faith  and  give  assur- 
ances for  the  future,  and  he  does  not  do  this  as 
a  representative  of  a  class,  but  as  a  sinner  saved 


by  grace;  he  could  say  what  any  other  might, 
"Behold  if  I  have  taken  anything  from  any  man 
by  false  accusation,  1  restore  four-fold." 

Let  us  analyze  the  respective  elements  in 
the  two  classes  in  whom,  according  to  God's 
testimony,  there  was  no  difference.  The  respect- 
able was  a  viper,  a  hypocrite,  a  whitened  sepul- 
chre, a  conspirator,  betrayer,  murderer,  on  the 
witness  of  the  Word,  while  not  a  word  of  testi- 
mony or  stigma  was  ever  entered  against  the 
Publican  by  any  but  the  Pharisee,  it  follows  that 
both  classes  were  sinners,  before  God;  the  Pub- 
licans, humanly  speaking,  open  to  conviction; 
the  Pharisees  not;  the  religion  of  the  one  could 
avail  no  more  with  God  than  the  irreligion  of 
the  other.  The  taint  in  the  blood  would  be 
found  the  same  in  both,  begotten  in  the  likeness 
of  Adam,  after  his  alienation  and  no  whit  an 
improvement  over  Eve's  first  born;  no  moral 
decency  in  the  accuser  or  accused.  The  Phari- 
sees in  their  unbelief  neglected,  rejected  and 
slew  the  Son  of  God:  In  building  the  tombs  of 
the  prophets,  they  confessed  themselves  in  their 
words  (Matt.  23:31)  the  children  of  those  who 
killed  thp!  prophets.  The  Pharisee  despised  the 
Publican  because  he  was  disloyal  to  their  nation, 
while  the  Pharisee  himself  was  disloyal  to  the 
God  of  that  nation. 

In  Dr.  Watson's  appeal  for  popular  favor,  he 
introduces  all  sorts  of  vagaries  into  Luke  18,  and 
undertakes  to  throw  numerous  oriental  sidelights 
into  Simon's  feast  as  given  in  Luke  7.  In  hivS 
bid  for  popular  applause  he  loses  the  benediction 
of  God,  for  no  lie  is  of  the  truth 

An  altogether  fair  and  conscientious  re- 
viewer, who  undertakes  to  make  in  some  degree 
a  critical,  though  of  necessity  in  this  case,  a 
somewhat  superficial  examination,  should  be  in- 
telligent in  his  comparisons,  honest  in  his  con- 
clusions, charitable  in  his  discussions,  while  he 
strives  to  exhibit  the  same  geutleness  in  com- 
bating error,  that  characterized  our  Lord,  in  His 
wonderful  interview  with  the  woman  of  Sychar, 


33 

and  while  he  gives  in  simplicity  the  results  of 
his  investigation,  he  must  neither  be  broader 
nor  narrower  than  the  Word  of  God,  the  only  rule 
for  trying  any  and  every  utterance  of  men. 

Now  under  such  circumstances  to  speak  of 
regrets  would  be  incongruous,  and  yet  to  traverse 
so  many  lines,  one  is  sure  to  find  much  that  is 
charming,  and  while  to  be  honest  one  must  re- 
buke error,  one  confesses  to  occasional  pangs  of 
remorse,  as  he  comes  face  to  face  with  some 
sweet  tribute  to  the  homeless  Nazarene  by  our 
eloquent,  popular,  but  misleading  Scotch  preach- 
er. Such  pangs  are  but  momentary,  for  while 
one  is  chagrined  for  having  criticised  at  all, 
radical  lines  of  departure  from  the  truth  claim 
attention,  and  one  is  convinced  of  the  unrelia- 
bility of  the  products  of  such  a  pen.  At  the 
threshold  of  the  number  under  consideration, 
occasion  is  found  for  stumbling,  in  Dr.  Watson's 
references  to  the  "innocency  and  simplicity  of 
the  Eden  state,"  involving  also  his  beautiful  tri- 
bute to  the  children,  his  touching  words  con- 
cerning Jesus  and  His  unselfish  love  for  the  little 
ones. 

Dr.  Watson  proves  himself  untaught  in  mat- 
ters involving  the  church,  for  while  in  the  mind 
of  God  it  had  a  name  and  place  from  the  foun- 
dation of  the  world,  yet  it  had  no  visible  exist- 
ence among  men  during  the  days  of  our  Lord's 
life  in  the  earth.  The  element  to  whom  Jesus 
came,  and  with  whom  He  dealt  directly  and 
almost  exclusively,  was  the  Jew,  one  of  the  three 
divisions  into  which  Paul,  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 
afterwards  grouped  the  world.  -'The  Jew,  the 
Gentile  and  the  Church  of  God,"  Jesus  could 
not  in  His  life  deal  with  the  church,  as  it  grew 
out  of  His  death  and  resurrection,  and  the  prom- 
ised enduement  by  the  Spirit  of  the  Father. 
Even  after  the  foundation  was  laid  for  this  super- 
structure the  apostles  were  in  obscurity  as  to 
the  part  which  they  were  expected  to  perform, 
and  methods  peculiarly  and  almost  exclusively 
Jewish,    characterized    what    was    done,    until, 


34 

through  persecution  and  other  diyine  interposi- 
tions involving  object  lessons  of  one  kind  or  an- 
other, they  were  led  into  God's  purposes,  who 
by  the  Spirit  began  calling  out  the  Church  from 
Jew  and  Gentile  alike,  who  lost  their  identity  as 
such,  in  the  Church  of  God,  as  they  became 
members  of  the  body  of  Christ,  and  members  one 
of  another. 

It  would  be  interesting  to  take  up  and  ex- 
amine in  the  light  of  the  Word,  the  Lord  Jesus 
in  His  relation  to  the  children,  as  described  in 
four  scenes  in  the  Gospel,  in  which  all  sorts  of 
unscriptural  and  un-Christlike  things  are  intro- 
duced by  Dr.  Watson:  much  of  fancy  and  less  of 
fact,  the  former  dominating,  the  latter  meagre, 
the  two  misleading  and  corrupting,  tilling  living 
temples  with  demoralizing  and  debasing  error, 
which  might  otherwise  be  adorned  with  gracious, 
life-giving,  life  sustaining.  God-glorifying  truths, 
drawn  in  their  freshness  from  God's  store-house, 
suited  to  the  needs  of  each  particular  one;  sal- 
vation and  healing  to  the  sinner,  instruction  and 
comfort  to  sons.  Man's  conceptions  are  but 
stumbling  blocks  in  the  way  of  the  sinner,  hurt- 
ful, distressing  error  for  the  saint. 

We  shall  examine  somewhat,  in  the  light  of 
Scripture,  the  arguments  of  Dr.  Watson  in  rela- 
tion to  the  three  classes  which  he  ha-i  chosen  to 
represent  by  three  notable  characters  introduced 
into  the  sacred  page  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  but 
used  by  our  inventive  doctor  along  lines  which 
have  no  foundation  in  the  facts,  as  set  forth  in 
the  divine  Record.  Nathaniel,  Nicodemus  and 
Zaccheus,  critic,  formalist  and  sinner,  are  made 
to  serve  purposes  and  do  service  in  a  strange  and 
unique  way.  Born  in  the  brain  of  this  candi- 
date for  popularity,  it  had  been  better  had  they 
"died  a  horning,"  rather  than  that  boys  and  girls 
get  their  impressions  of  God  and  these  New  Tes- 
tament worthies,  in  this  uncertain  caricature  of 
that  which  is  holy. 

The  only  scriptural  premise  laid  for  making 
a  critic  out  of  Nathaniel,  is  found  In  John  1:46, 


35 

"Can  any  good  thing  come  out  of  Nazareth?"'  So 
far  as  we  have  it  iu  the  Word  of  God,  Philip 
preaches  the  gospel  of  the  Old  Tehtament  to 
Nathaniel,  identities  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  the  son 
of  Joseph,  with  the  promised  Messiah:  to  which 
Nathaniel  hesitates  apparently  but  a  brief  mo- 
ment, asks  one  simple  question,  and  straightway 
responds  to  the  invitation  of  Philip,  "Come  and 
see."  This  man  of  letters  attempts  to  build  out 
of  a  chimera  a  colossal  edifice  of  pure  Action, 
the  objective  point  being  to  prove  Nathaniel  a 
critic  like  himself. 

To  Nicodemus  he  assigns  the  role  of  ••fornial- 
ist,"  in  an  equally  gratuitous  way,  tells  us  "that 
he  was  the  most  honest  Pharisee  Jesus  met,'^ 
''that  this  meeting  took  place  at  his  first  visit 
to  Jerusalem,"  '  that  he  had  a  reputation  for  the- 
ology "  Zaccheus  stands  for  the  sinner,  even 
tho'  nowhere  in  the  Word  are  Publican  and  sin- 
ner found  synonomous,  the  Holy  ISpirit  us^ually 
coupling  the  Publican  and  the  sinner  together, 
which  would  not  be  found  so,  if  they  could  be 
used  interchangeably  or  were  identical  in  mean- 
ing. 

Dr.  Watson  very  kindly  gives  us  the  hither- 
to unknown  details  in  the  life  of  Nathaniel, 
tells  us  where  he  lived,  what  he  was,  his  stand- 
ing and  habits,  that  he  stood  aloof  from  the 
movements  of  John  the  Baptist,  and  why:  that 
Philip  did  go  to  the  Jordan  because  there  were 
a  multitude;  one  a  mjstic,  the  other  a  man  of 
affairs.  That  Nathaniel  was  a  "quiet,  mrdest, 
diffident,  questioning  person,  and  he  stayed  at 
home."  "gathering  what  was  written  about 
the  Messiah  in  Scripture,  accumulating,  compar- 
ing, reconciling  evidence,  and  creating  a  portrait 
which  would  satisfy  his  reason,  and  by  wliich 
he  would  identify  the  coming  One."  To  recon- 
cile evidence  to  meet  one's  reason,  has  in  it  none 
of  the  characteristics  of  faith;  faith  believes, 
does  not  reconcile:  searching  for  proof,  compar- 
ing Scripture  with  Scripture,  help'ul;  but  the 
microscope  and  knife  are  not  the  instruments 


36 

for  helpful,  restful  research, .  but  suggest  some- 
thing lacking  in  the  record,— hints  of  supple- 
mental work  through  reason,  the  introduction 
of  natural  law  and  the  application  of  science  in 
the  spiritual  world.  We  are  told  that  Nathaniel 
was  learned,  speculative,  conscientious,  and  that 
he  would  see  Jesus  for  himself;  but  for  Philip, 
who  hears  and  believes,  a  simple  child  of  faith, 
the  great  doctor  has  no  kindly  mention.  That 
which  pleased  God  does  not  give  pleasure  to 
Doctor  Watson,  while  Nathaniel,  the  doctor 
would  have  us  believe,  was  occupied  with  his 
senses  in  perplexity  and  sadness,  adjusting  that 
which  was  written,  discounting  the  Messiah's 
claim  on  him:  he  finds  no  help  from  uncritical 
Philip,  who  is  so  easily  satisfied,  and  hence  no 
criterion  for  him.  His  estimate  of  the  ancient, 
honored,  the  oldest  and  best  Book  is  seen  in 
this  query,  "and  yet  is  the  question  of  Jesus  to 
be  settled  by  the  ancient  books?  There  is  not 
an  element  in  this  sketch  of  Nathaniel  in  har- 
mony with  the  Divine  record. 

The  only  way  out  of.  darkness  into  light  is 
by  faith;  reason  as  remote  as  a  means  to  this 
end  as  the  silly  nonsense  of  a  congress  of  relig- 
ions. Jesus  will  satisfy  no  man  who  will  not 
believe  in  Him.  The  Pharisees  got  nothing 
from  Him:  Mary  found  everything  to  meet  her 
every  need  in  Him.  Faith  always,  reason  never, 
brings  the  sinner  enrapport  with  Jesus  Christ. 
Deliverance  from  sjn.  its  power  and  its  penalty, 
comes  through  simple,  child-like  faith  in  the 
crucified  and  risen  One,  and  no  other  way.  The 
simple  and  the  critic  go  in  at  the  same  door, 
and  the  former  is  not  retarded  l>y  his  lack  of 
mind,  the  latter  not  helped  by  his  superabun- 
dance. 

We  now  come  to  the  consideration  of  the 
pen  portrait  of  Nicodemus,  "the  formalist,"  by 
this  untrustworthy  caracaturist,  who  prostitutes 
the  Word  of  God  as  a  presumable  basis  for 
"Tiie  Life  of  the  Master,"  but  who  ignores 
what  is  written  and  substitutes  his  ov^d  ideas 


37 

in  the  place  of  God's  words.  The  Holy  Ghost 
gives  all  we  can  possibly  know  of  tliis  "man  of 
the  Pliarisees, — name,  office,  time  and  interview 
of  Jesus,  the  conversation  of  John  three;  the 
brief  word  of  John  seven;  a  supplemental  line 
or  more  in  John  nineteen.  Tnis  satisfies  the 
child  of  faith,  who  is  fully  persuaded  that  all 
he  needs  to  know  has  been  revealed  by  the 
Spirit,  and  for  the  learned  doctor  to  intimate 
"that  Nicodemus  would  miss  a  certain  academic 
flavor  in  Jesus'  speech  dear  unto  scholars,"  is 
but  to  fling  into  the  face  of  the  omniscient 
Christ  an  insult  too  base  to  be  chronicled;  such 
sacrilege  is  without  precedent,  save  in  the 
mouths  of  the  profane  and  vile.  This  covert 
attack  upon  the  divinity  of  our  Lord  obscures 
all  the  pretty  touches  found  in  the  preceding 
papers.  The  divine  man  who  shocked  ISicode- 
mus  with  his  provincialisms,  this  irreverend 
and  unsafe  teacher  inconsistently  tells  us  in 
another  place  "knew  the  thoughts  of  the  Phar- 
isees and  confused  them  in  ills  dealings  with 
them."  Doctor  Watson  forestalls  what  is  writ- 
ten on  the  sacred  pages  as  he  injects  his  faulty 
words  into  the  face  of  Him  who  knew  all 
things;  for  Nicodemus  without  fear  or  favor, 
confessed  himself  to  be  in  the  presence  of  one 
who  came  from  God,  and  who  had  God  with 
Him,  which  while  not  up  to  the  mark,  was  at 
least  greatly  in  advance  of  the  one  who  dares 
to  write  this  parody  upon  the  life  of  the  Mas- 
ter. Who  but  Doctor  Watson  would  dare  to 
insinuate  that  God  would  even  send  an  un- 
tutored man  to  earth  to  represent  Him,  much 
less  that  this  was  He  who  came  out  from  God 
with  all  His  attributes  who  could  be  trammeled 
by  weakness  or  ignorance?  Nicodemus  found 
no  occasions  for  criticism,  no  child  of  faith 
dare  hint  at  failure  anywhere  in  Jesus.  He 
heard  Jesus'  words,  he  believed  them.  The 
"how  can  these  things  be"'  of  Nicodemus  in 
keeping  with  the  woman  of  John  four  "from 
whence   then   hast   thou    this    living    water?" 


38 

Both  are  scholars  in  the  same  school  with  the 
same  Teacher,  at  ditterent  time  and  place, 
drinking  in  their  simplicity,  at  the  same  tount- 
airi:  one  a  riiarisec,  the  other  an  adultress; 
and  ''Lhere  is  no  ditlerence,"'  for  without  Christ 
one  is  no  more  lost  than  the  oLher,  but  one 
channel  to  Himself,  opened  up  by  Himself,  by 
which  in  His  own  way  both  may  have  access 
through  falLh. 

Jesus,  "the  provincial,''  propounded  the 
most  profound  truths  ever  uttered;  no  such 
words  ever  fell  up.ia  the  ears  of  this  Ruler  of 
tlie  Jew!5  before;  bat  we  know  nothing  of  his 
past,  his  attitude  toward  empty  rights,  hack- 
neyed phra-es,  barren  methods,  etc.  Still  we 
are  told  that  'one  honest  man  recognizes 
another."  Was  it  only  a  man  whom  Nicodemus 
mety  Do  the  facts  given  prove  according  to 
John  seven  that  this  ruler  of  the  Jews  was 
bound  to  act  in  concert  with  h'n  colleagues? 

The  paper  under  consideration  is  out  of 
harmony  with  that  which  is  written;  errors  read 
in,  truths  read  out;  the  divine  utterance  marred 
by  misstatement,  the  casual  reader  mislead,  the 
little  one  offended,  God  dishonored,  man  deified, 
as  entertainment  is  furnished  for  the  thought- 
less and  ignorant;  no  one  edified,  stumbling 
blocks  of  Satanic  make  and  mould  injected 
ruthlessly  into  the  pathway  of  the  unwary  pil- 
grim, through  misrepresentatioti  to  trip  the 
feet  of.  (rod's  little  ones.  Nicodemus  became  a 
bH'liever  and  learner  when  born  into  Gurls  fam- 
ily; Jesus  preached  the  Word,  the  man  of  the 
Pharisees  believed  the  message,  passed  from 
death  unto  life.  Nathaniel  was  a  sinner,  as 
was  Ncodemus  and  Zaccheus,  no  more,  no  less, 
born  the  saiue  way,  under  condemnation,  with- 
oiitiCnrist,  without  hope;  the  same  measure  of 
gill  I  secured  equal  judgment  through  the  pen- 
alty of  a  law  given  by  the  hands  of  a  sin  hat- 
ing God:  there  was  no  reaching  out  after  God 
in    either   apart   from    the    Spirit.      The    first 


39 

Adam  brought  them  nothing  to  help  them 
God  ward.  What  is  your  relation  to  the  second 
man,  the  Lord  from'  heaven? 

The  name  of  Zaccheus  occurs  three  times  in 
Luke  only,  all  that  is  known  of  him  is  tokl  in 
ten  brief  verses  of  less  than  forty Jines.  The 
last  verse  of  the  ten  is  the  key  that  unlocks 
the  mystery  of  the  life  of  our  Lord  in  the 
earth.  The  seeking  Saviour  looks  for  and  finds 
Zaccheus;  the  latter  do3s  noL  tind  Je-us.  As 
usual  tiie  imagination  plays  the  most  important 
pirt  in  the  sk-tch  of  this  intere«iting  character 
as  given  by  our  writer;  as  a  matter  of  fact  we 
cannot  surely  know  an  antecedant  incident  in 
the  life  of  Zaccheus,  whether  practically  he  was 
worse  or  better  than  his  class,  nor  the  attitude 
of  the  thronging  multitude,  then,  or  before. 
We  do  know  that;  he  received  Jesus;  that  he 
came  down  out  of  the  sycamore  tree  in  obedi- 
ence to  the  command  of  Jesus,  and  further  that 
he  received  Him  joyfully,  we  surely  know  just 
what  this  involves  from  John  1:12;  and  that  his 
confession  is  the  first  aspiration  of  the  new 
life,  which  by  faith  in  the  Son  of  God  he  has 
but  just  now  begun  to  live.  The  closing 
thought  of  the  paper  before  us  is  not  in  har- 
mony with  God's  way  of  putting  things.  As 
long  as  Zaccheus  was  unreconciled  to  .lesus  he 
could  present  no  attraction  to  the  Ijord  of  life 
and  glory,  save  as  he  drew  forth  compassion 
from  the  blessed  Son  of  God,  as  Jesus  found 
him  in  weakness  and  sin.  Zaccheus  was  saved 
because  he  believed  in  Jesus,  not  because  Jesus 
believed  in  him. 

Giving  the  sense  of  Scripture  is  incomparably 
vicious;  the  finite  tampering  with  the  Infinite, 
a  potent  evil,  misleading  millions  as  it  lays  the 
foundation  for  deceiving  unborn  millions  more. 
Traditional  rendering  is  increasingly  popular, 
because  the  mind  of  man  is  ever  more  accept- 
able to  men  than  the  mind  of  God;  human  in- 
genuity is  needed  to  blunt  its  force  and  effect, 
and   crush   out   the   life-giving    principle    con- 


40 

tained  in  the  message  as  it  comes  from  its 
divine  source.  Men  instructed  in  tlie  Word  will 
rarely,  if  ever,  undertake  to  give  the  significa- 
tion for  the  very  reason  that  they  prize  the 
Word  of  God  too  highly  to  undertake  to  mar 
its  beauty  by  an  error;  haphazard  methods  may 
commend  themselves  to  men,  but  an  immortal 
soul  must  not  be  jeopardized  by  an  incorrect 
rendering  of  God's  unique  message  to  man.  The 
Lord  may  dignify  man  in  using  him  as  a  mes- 
senger, but  it  is  that  he  may  bear  the  Lord's 
message,  not  a  grouping  of  words,  an  admixture 
of  the  humau  and  divine,  purporting  to  be 
what  it  is  not,  but  a  communication  from  the 
Infinite  One.  To  mislead  a  soul  in  the  careless 
misuse  of  words  is  reprehensible,  but  to  delib- 
erately read  the  divine  out  and  the  human  into 
God's  testimony,  is  God  dishonoring  and  soul 
destroying.  Perhaps  nowhere  in  modern  litera- 
ture can  be  found  such  flagrant  departure  from 
what  is  written  on  the  sacred  pages  as  charac- 
terizes Dr.  John  Watson,  with  his  disjointed, 
disconnected,  emasculated,  broken  paragraphs, 
pieced  out  from  scripture  to  suit  the  case,  and 
given  as  a  premise  for  his  so-called  '"Life  of  the 
Master,"  as  in  the  role  of  a  romancer  he  ven- 
tures into  sacred  precincts  already  hallowed  by 
the  presence  of  one  who  spake  as  never  man 
spake.  But  what  shall  we  say  of  deliberate 
falsification,  interpolation,  emasculation  but 
that  it  is  the  corrupting  trail  of  the  serpent, 
and  infinitely  more  God  dishonoring  than  a 
mere  slip  of  the  tongue,  or  the  utterance  of  one 
who  ignorantly  affects  to  give  the  sense?  These 
papers  under  review  reek  with  silly  sentiment, 
unsavory  and  nauseating,  demoralizing  thou- 
sands of  superficial  readers,  who  are  perhaps  to 
get  their  first  and  only  impression  of  God  as 
they  find  it  issue  from  the  false  and  uncertain 
lines  of  one  who  is  seeking  the  applause  of 
men,  and  apparently  does  not  court  the  divine 
benediction. 


41 

We  are  told  that  "one  rich  man  after 
another  stands  out  in  his  place  and  can  be 
identified."  The  first  (he  says)  is  given  without 
disguise,  because  he  was  an  acquaintance  of 
His,  and  figured  in  a  romantic  incident."  This 
twaddle  the  untaught  will  accept  as  truth,  be- 
cause of  the  holy  calling  of  this  reverend 
writer.  We  are  told  again  that  this  young 
Ruler  was  from  the  country,  belonging  to  the 
higher  class  in  society,  father  wealthy,  character 
of  good  principles  and  solid  worth  quickened 
by  spiritual  ideas,  unworldly  instincts,  fine  vein 
of  enthusiasm  and  a  habit  of  self-forgetfulness, 
which  were  very  taking;  again,  born  heir  to 
dangerous  advantages  and  competing  tempta- 
tions, he  v?as  neither  a  profligate  nor  a  prig, 
but  a  well-liking,  cultivated,  high  spirited, 
rev-*-rent  gentleman."  Discriminating  readers 
will  see  at  once  the  need  of  subjecting  these 
lines  to  careful  scrutiny  and  painstaking  com- 
parison witn  that  whicn  "is  written,"  for  the 
manner  of  the  man  makes  it  all  the  more  nec- 
essary that  his  words  shall  be  truth,  for  thou- 
sands of  superficial  readers  much  prefer  to 
accept  scripture  references  second-hand.  Not 
considering  their  value  nor  demanding  marks 
of  genuineness;  and  thus  it  comes  to  pass  that 
what  might  be  a  stepping  stone  God  ward  into 
an  eternity  of  blessing,  degenerates  into  stum- 
bling blocks  over  which  men  are  cast  into  per- 
dition. Brilliant,  but  blind,  is  our  Scotch 
author,  eloquent  as  A  polios,  perversive  as 
Elymas;  but  we  can  only  glance  at  these  pict- 
ures thrown  upon  the  canvas  by  this  master  in 
fictitious  art. 

The  second  rich  man  we  are  told  "is  a  very 
unlovely  character;"  as  one  gathers  from  his 
increase  in  wealth  and  coarseness  in  tone,  he 
had  not  been  heir  to  riches  and  position,  as 
was  the  young  Ruler,  and  he  had  not,  there- 
fore, his  fine  instincts  and  graciousness;"  he 
speaks  with  freedom  of  his  "hard  struggle  from 
poverty  to  afiluence,  a  progress  not  from  knowl- 


42 

edge  to  knowledge,  nor  from  character  to  char- 
acter, but  from  barn  to  barn.''  And  so  the 
uninteresting,  unlikely  details  are  raad  into 
this  life  of  tliis  fool  of  whom  his  soul  had  been 
required.  The  reviewer  tias  no  disposition  to 
cavil  at  the  steps  that  this  lover  of  money  is 
made  to  take  in  his  rise  from  poverty  to  riches, 
but  of  the  audacity  which  presumes  to  supply 
a  bill  of  particulars  wliere  the  Divine  Penman 
is  silent. 

•'The  third  man  of  riches  is  a  stronger  fig- 
ure and  a  more  complicated  character"'  we  are 
told;  also  that  "he  was  not  a  sordid  wretch, 
like  the  man  of  barns,"'  "nor  a  student  like  the 
young  Iluler,  but  he  rather  stands  for  the  lux- 
ury and  magnificence  of  riches,"  "no  leisure  for 
private  charity,"  "but  there  was  in  him  a  gen- 
erous heart,"'  "would  have  done  kindly  things 
if  he  had  thought;  so  great  that  he  did  not 
notice  a  beggar,"'  "among  his  easy  environments 
his  imagination  had  died,'"  "could  not  put  him- 
self in  his  brother's  place,  etc"  But  our 
author  passes  by  the  wonderful  scene  portrayed 
by  our  Lord  and  throws  his  own  false  sketch 
upon  the  canvas,  which  suffers  by  comparison; 
the  changes  wrought  as  the  result  of  their 
changed  conditions  is  glossed  over;  the  hell  and 
torment  of  the  one:  the  convoy  of  the  angels 
and  the  goal  in  Abraham's  bosom  of  the  other. 
In  the  false  conception  of  Rev.  Watson  the  tire 
that  is  to  shake  tliis  victim  of  prosperity  out 
of  self  and  set  him  free  from  the  grip  of  riches 
and  their  insiduous  and  deadening  power  is 
apparently  an  influence  brought  into  his  life 
rather  than  a  fixed  condition  in  death. 

According  to  Dr.  Watson,  the  wonderful 
words  spoken  by  our  Lord  with  reference  to  "a 
certain  rich  man''  (without  a  name)  and  a 
certain  beggar  named  Lazarus"  separated  by  a 
great  gulf  fixed""  do  not  suggest  any  particular 
dilflculty,  tho'  the  one  that  had  received  his 
good  things  and  he  that  liad  received  evil 
things  have  changed  places  for  all  eternity;  but 


43 

the  doct  r,  true  to  his  bent,  gives  it  no  consid- 
eration; nothing  of  tlie  water,  of  the  torment, 
the  flame;  nothing  of  sending  the  once  despised 
beggar,  now  comforted,  as  one  from  the  dead 
back  to  his  father's  iiouse  to  warn  his  brothers 
lest  they  also  come  into  this  place  of  torment; 
nothing  of  Abraham's  tribute  to  the  authority 
and  value  of  the  Word  as  found  in  Moses  and 
the  Prophets  over  and  above  the  testimony  of 
one  rising  from  the  dead. 

This  "Life  of  the  Master"  is  fiction;  it 
reflects  the  man  Watson,  not  the  man  Christ. 
The  truth  he  passes  over  and  the  fancy  he 
throws  in  proves  him  as  holding  lightly  to  that 
which  is  divine  in  the  Son  of  God,  but  revelling 
always  and  everywhere  where  a  loose  rein  can 
be  thrown  to  the  imagination.  Read  "The  Life 
of  the  Master"  by  all  means,  but  with  an  open 
Bible  before  you;  compare  every  utterance  of 
Doctor  Watson  with  what  is  found  written 
there;  form  your  own  estimate  of  the  value  of 
such  work  as  has  been  wrought  by  this  fancy 
monger.  But  behold  three  men  ruined  not  by 
"fastidious  refinement,  coarse  greed  or  unre- 
strained luxury,"  but  through  the  love  of 
money,  issuing  from  being  born  wrong,  and  go- 
ing wrong  from  birth  and  ending  up  in  reject- 
ing God's  only  way  of  salvation  through  Christ. 
Tlie  rich  young  Ruler  under  law  heard  the  mes- 
sage, from  the  Law  Giver,  rejected  it;  the  rich 
man  of  Luke  sixteen  had  Moses  and  the  proph- 
ets, but  he  rejected  God's  way  through  them; 
all  laid  up  treasure  toward  themselves  and 
neither  were  rich  toward  God. 

The  Holy  Spirit's  words  are  unmatched  in 
kind,  excellence  and  signification  in  their  con- 
nection. This  whole  unique  testimony,  the 
truth,  the  whole  truth  and  nothing  but  the 
truth,  comprehending  in  its  singularity  all  the 
mind  of  God.  as  expressed  in  the  Holy  Script- 
ures in  Words  of  His  choice,  and  each  particular 
letter  chosen  by  Himself  with  which  He  in- 
tended to  form  a  part  of  speech,  as  the  symbol 


44 

of  His  own  thoughts;  its  true  meaning  often 
incomprehensible  apart  from  its  setting,  and 
altogether  meaningless  to  man  when  viewed  as 
an  abstraction,  or  when  associated  with  things 
not  germane.  It  is  God's  message  to  man,  to 
be  received,  believed,  applied,  lived;  to  be 
tested  by  the  application  of  its  precepts  and 
promises  in  the  life,  but  not  to  be  discussed; 
neither  is  it  to  be  woven  into  fiction  to  give  it 
character.  The  men  who  penned  it  could  only 
do  so  as  borne  along  by  the  Spirit;  the  men 
who  expound  it  powerless  apart  from  the  Divine 
Author.  Dr.  John  Watson  gives  half  truths  in 
disjointed  excerpts,  in  his  own  words,  and  suc- 
ceeds in  robbing  God  of  honor:  the  Book  of 
glory,  as  he  saps  the  life  out  of  what  is  found 
Written  on  the  sacred  page.  This  world  which 
slew  the  Son  of  God  is  a  religious  world;  occu- 
pied with  the  form,  they  deny  the  power;  if 
the  message  smacks  of  religion  they  concern 
themselves  precious  little  about  the  Scripture 
connection,  or  literality.  A  magazine  may 
quadruple  its  issue  because  it  contains  a  semi- 
religious  story  without  any  significance  what- 
ever, as  to  the  character  of  the  story,  or  the 
motive  of  the  subscribers.  Pious  phrases  are 
more  or  less  acceptable  in  proportion  to  the 
state  of  the  physical  health. 

The  semi-religious  worldling  boasts  of  his 
liberality,  his  breadth  of  charity.  The  Bible 
Christian  demands  literality,  the  inerrant  Word, 
the  only  safe  channel  of  communication  between 
God  and  man,  he  declines  to  accept  reasons 
estimate  and  application,  counts  it  unsafe  as  a 
means  to  an  end,  and  insists  that  the  Word  of 
God  is  the  only  authoritative  rule  for  the  life 
which  now  is,  and  that  which  furnishes  equip- 
ment for  the  life  which  is  to  come. 

The  paper  before  us  opens  in  language 
without  scriptural  sanction,  as  follows:  "It  is 
inevitable  that  any  prophet  who  sets  himself 
to  regenerate  society  shall  face  the  problem  of 
riches."      Our    writer   and    the    unregenerated 


45 

blind  beggar  of  John  nine  agree  in  according 
Jesus  the  place  of  a  prophet;  hence  a  mere 
man,  though  after  receiving  his  sight  the  njan 
blind  from  his  birth  does  not  worship  Him. 
But  when  Jesus  propounded  those  searchintr 
words,  "Dost  thou  believe  on  the  Son  of  God?" 
he  quickly  responds,  "Who  is  He,  Lord,  that  1 
might  believe  on  Him?"  Jesus  answers.  "Thou 
hast  both  seen  Him,  and  it  is  He  that  talketh 
with  thee."  And  he  said,  "Lord,  I  believe," 
and  he  worshipped  Him.  Recovering  of  sight  to 
his  eyes  he  traces  to  a  prophet.  To  a  being 
worthy  of  his  faith,  he  accords  worship.  Jesus 
said  of  John  the  Baptist,  "Yea,  I  say  unto  you 
(he  is)  much  more  than  a  prophet."  John  says 
of  Jesus,  "I  saw  and  bear  record  that  this  is 
the  Son  of  God."  No  Scripture  data  can  be 
given  to  prove  that  Jesus  came  to  regenerate 
society.  Jesus  did  not  deal  with  the  mass,  but 
with  the  individual,  often  in  solitary  places, 
at  night,  at  noonday,  alone.  Jesus  was  in  no 
sense  a  reformer;  out  of  the  mass  of  corrupting, 
sinning  humanity,  Jesus  came  to  call  men,  indi- 
viduals to  repentance;  He  could  do  nothing  for 
the  ninety  and  nine,  but  He  could  go  after  that 
which  was  lost  until  He  finds  it;  He  could  lay 
it  on  His  shoulders  with  rejoicing  and  bring  it 
home.  Men  needing  salvation  must  be  dealt 
with  as  units;  society  is  soulless;  the  burning 
question  is  "what  shall  a  MAN  give  in  exchange 
for  his  soul?" 

The  problem  of  riches  was  easily  solved  by 
the  all-knowing  One.  He  only  knew  how  cor- 
rupting a  force  gold  would  become  in  alienating 
men  from  their  Maker.  The  poverty  of  the 
poor  not  nearly  so  soul  destroying  as  the  wealth 
of  the  rich.  Jesus,  the  Maker  and  upholder  of 
the  world,  was  the  possessor  of  it  all;  He  was 
rich,  yet  for  our  (your)  sakes  became  poor,  that 
we  (ye),  through  His  poverty,  might  be  rich. 
There  was  no  comparisons  drawn  by  Him  as  to 
His  surroundings  as  set  over  against  the  rich; 
if  "His  duty  led   Him   into  the  houses  of   the 


46 

rich  people,"  it  is  preposterous  to  suppose  that 
"He  was  made  to  feel  in  many  ways  that  an  in- 
vitation to  a  rich  man's  house  was  an  honor  to 
be  thankfully  and  humb'y  used.''  lie  recognized 
no  justly  distinguishing  marks  according  pre- 
eminence because  of  riches;  it  was  not  the  honor 
and  distinction  which  great  possessions  brought 
men  that  awed  and  humbled  Jesus,  but  the  hurt- 
ful effect  upon  their  own  souls  which  He  well 
knew  was  inevitable,  and  that  the  love  of  money 
was  almost  sure  to  follow  the  aggregation  of 
wealth.  We  have  no  means  of  knowing  that 
Simon,  the  Pharisee  of  the  seventh  chapter  of 
Luke,  was  rich,  or  even  in  d  fferent  circum- 
stances from  Jesus'  mother;  it  was  not  his 
wealth  or  lack  of  it  that  caused  him  to  with- 
hold the  common  courtesies:  it  was  the  s^me 
ignorance  and  unbelief  which  today  robs  Jesus 
of  divinity  and  refuses  to  accord  our  divine 
Lord  that  measure  of  homage  which  flowed  out 
in  spontaneity  through  the  tears  of  that  hith- 
erto sinful,  though  now  repentant  woman,  who 
stood  at  His  feet  behind  Him,  weeping  and 
washing  His  feet  with  he.-  tears,  and  in  contra- 
distinction to  the  treatment  accorded  the  Lord 
of  life  and  glory  made  in  the  likeness  of  sinful 
flpsh  by  Dr.  John  Watson  in  his  effort  to  pro- 
duce a  life  of  the  Master. 

Again  we  read,  "It  is  laid  on  His  heart  to 
speak  to  the  rich  as  no  prophet  has  done  since." 
Jesus  spoke  as  God.  knowing  the  end  from  the 
beginning,  not  with  the  envy  born  of  covetous- 
ness.  nor  with  the  reproach  and  invective — born 
of  silly  thoughts  about  the  relative  conditions 
existing  between  classes  because  of  scant  or 
abundant  resources.  It  was  not  the  riches  of 
the  rich  nor  the  poverty  of  the  poor  which 
occupied  Jesus,  only  as  in  the  former  case  it 
was  seen  to  be  inevitably  a  stumbling  block  in 
the  way  of  Godlines«?,  and  a  snare  in  devouring 
all  hope  in  time  for  an  eternity  with  God. 
Jesus  proves  His  coming  to  deal  with  Individ- 
nals  in  His  dealings  with  the  rich.    In  the  case 


47 

of  the  rich  youn^^  Ruler,  many  false  lines  are 
read  into  his  life,  in  the  face  of  his  decision 
to  reject  the  answer  of  Jesus  tf)  his  ([uestion 
as  to  what  he  should  do  to  inherit  eternal  life. 
Dr.  Watson  tells  us  "that  he  was  a  reverent 
gentleman,  one  to  whom  Providence  ujay  well 
give  riches  and  who  may  be  rich  with  safety." 
He  declines  to  obey  Jesus,-  but  good  Dr.  Watson 
commends  him.  he  tells  us  "he  would  be  weary 
unto  death  of  the  religion  of  the  day  and  the 
insincerity  of  the  religious  people."  The  young 
Kuler  may  have  had  an  admiration  for  the  Lord, 
but  he  had  no  faith  in  Him,  nor  use  for  His 
Words;  he  may  have  been  too  courteous  to  refuse 
Him  water  for  His  fe»^t  had  He  been  a  guest, 
but  he  turns  away  in  sadness  from  the  Lord  of 
life  and  glory  to  his  corrupting  possessions  and 
allowed  them  to  crowd  out  all  thoughts  of 
eternal  life.  He  might  yield  the  lowly  Galilean 
an  empty  civility  through  a  servant,  but  will 
not  accord  his  personal  allegiance  if  it  cost  a 
sacritice.  Dr.  Watson  is  so  enamored  with  the 
man  whom  he  clothes  with  such  refinement  and 
virtues  that  he  stoops,  by  way  of  comparison, 
to  pay  a  gratuitous  insult  to  Peter  and  Mat- 
thew, 'neither,"  says  he,  "having  souls  of  spec- 
ial refinement,"  and  yet  they  followed  Jesus  to 
the  end;  while  this  Ruler  "of  finer  clay"  prefers 
his  gold  to  his  God. 

Jesus,  who  was  very  man  and  very  God,  had 
no  disappointment  to  conceal  at  the  refusal  of 
the  young  Ruler;  Jesus  knew  what  his  decision 
would  be:  it  was  not  for  His  sake  that  the  test 
was  made,  but  that  the  young  Ruler  and  all 
about  him  might  behold  the  seductive  power  that 
bound  the  young  man,  siren  like,  to  the  prom- 
eathan  rock  which  was  to  work  his  absolute  un- 
doing. 

Dr.  Watson,  as  a  reasoner,  is  an  absolute 
failure,  and  ttie  problems  he  works  out  and  the 
lessons  he  deduces  from  the  scripture  narrative 
of  the  rich  young  Ruler,  proves  him  ab-olutely 
incapable  of  rightly  dividing  the  Word  of  truth; 


48 

his  word  painting  cannot  save  this  money  lover 
with  his  presumably  single,  serious,  fatal  lack, 
with  his  back  to  the  Son  of  God:  he  in  no  wise 
differed  in  his  "fastidious  refinement''  from  the 
one  "of  greed"' or  the  one  of  "unrestrained  luxuiy." 

This  trio  made  equally  notorious  by  Scripture 
mention,  diverse  in  habit,  but  one  in  selfish  aim 
and  greedy  purpose,  stand  out  conspicuously  as 
representatives  of  the  class  to  which  they  be- 
long. The  same  genus,  with  different  charac- 
teristics. 

Truth  stands  unmoved  as  a  mighty  bulwark 
against  which  the  errors  of  the  ages  have  beaten 
iu  vain,  for  truth  is  real,  in  conformity  to  fact; 
any  want  of  adherence  to  established  rule,  is 
error;  any  statement  that  does  not  possess  the 
elements  of  exactness  is  unreliable:  verity  is  not 
chimera:  if  communications  between  men  must 
be  free  from  exaggeration,  it  is  of  infinite  mo- 
ment that  a  restatement  of  God's  uni(iue  record 
shall  be  characterized  by  Scriptural  accuracy. 

Any  title  conferred  by  man  upon  his  fellow, 
betokening  isolation  and  a  supposed  official  rela- 
tion to  God,  suggests  increased  responsibility  as- 
sumed, and  demands  that  every  utterance  em- 
bracing the  heavenly  message  shall  be  but  a 
conscientious  iteration.  It  is  a  well  known  fact 
that  men  presuming  to  stand  for  the  Deity, 
whetlier  in  Christian  or  anti-Christian  countries, 
appear  to  some  to  be  panoplied  with  a  certain 
glamour  which  not  only  magnifies  the  office,  but 
seems  to  give  authority  to  the  utterance.  All 
will  admit  this  statement  susceptible  of  proof, 
hence  the  title  "reverend,"  is  accepted  as  a 
guarant.y  of  faithfulness  in  the  discharge  of  pre- 
sumed heavenly  functions.  If  this  claimant  for 
confidence  corrupts  the  message  of  which  he  is 
simply  the  bearer,  he  bears  the  same  relation  to 
those  to  whom  he  ministers  that  a  defunct  sure- 
ty company's  bond  does  to  its  patrons.  Every 
word  inspired  by  God.  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  "all 
Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God,"  in- 
volves the  highest  conception  of  authority  of  the 


49 

triune  God— Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost.  To 
touch  it  at  any  point  is  to  mar  it,  to  add  to  it, 
to  take  from  it  is  but  to  suffer  the  just  wrath 
of  a  righteous  God,  whose  unique  words  are  all 
pervasive,  all  wise,  all   powerful. 

The  number  now  under  consideration, 
abounds  in  ll-igrant  departures  from  the  truth. 
We  are  informed  that  He  (Jesus)  stayed  at  John's 
modest  lodging  in  Jerusalem,  as  well  as  used  the 
"upper  room"  of  a  wealthier  friend;  we  are  told 
of"the  room  in  the  Publican's  house  in  Caper- 
naum which  was  made  sacred  because  Jesus  had 
feasted  there,  and  sealed,  as  in  a  sacrament,  the 
salvation  of  Levi.  "The  romance  of  Bethany" 
Is,  perhaps,  the  silliest  of  all  his  senseless  pro- 
ductions, where  Simon,  the  Pharisee  of  Luke 
YII,  is  through  a  judgment  for  his  lack  of  cour- 
tesy and  his  hardness  and  exclusiveness  toward 
Jesus  made  to  become  Simon,  the  leper,  of  Mark 
XIV;  and  thought  to  be  father  of  Lazarus,  Mar- 
tha and  Mary.  In  the  house  of  the  later  Simon, 
Martha  is  made  to  amend  her  father's  lack  of 
hospitality;  Mary  is  so  affected  with  the  unbid- 
den, sinful,  weeping  woman  at  Simon,  the  Phar- 
isee's house,  that  she  will  annoint  Jesus  also. 
His  head  and  His  feet,  in  the  house  of  Simon, 
the  leper  (her  father).  Dr.  Watson  would  have 
us  believe  Simon,  the  "Pharisee,"  as  separated 
from  his  friends  and  his  family,  stricken  with 
the  symbol  of  sin,  the  awful  scourge  of  leprosy, 
which  compelled  him  to  leave  his  home,  his  city, 
his  associates,  his  children,  and  pass  into  seclu- 
sion,"' and  this  is  what  the  careless  reader  istobe 
wheedled  into  accepting,  led  captive  by  Satan  at 
his  will,  who  stands  in  the  forefront  ready  to 
abet  every  effort  to  rob  (rod  of  His  glory  in  re- 
ducing the  force  and  effect  of  His  Most  Holy 
Word. 

There  is  nothing  really  known  of  the  per- 
sonnel of  the  New  Testament  which  is  not  found 
written  there;  to  add  to  it  or  to  take  from  it  is 
to' cast  insult  into  the  face  of  God.  "But  ven- 
geance is  mine,  1  will   repay,  saith   the   Lord." 


50 

If  changing  the  force  and  eflEect  of  man's  words 
naay  prove  a  misdemeanor,  how  much  more 
heinous  lo  corrupt-  the  Word  of  God.  Such  an 
attitude  toward  the  Word  of  God  suggests  a 
failure  to  comprehend  llim.  Tlie  men  who  es- 
teem it  incomplete  and  susceptible  of  improve- 
ment at  their  hands,  rush  with  unseemly  haste 
into  the  very  presence  of  God  and  with  audacious 
etirontery  inject  their  silly  supplemental  para- 
graphs into  what  they  esteem  defective. 

'•The  destructioa  of  the  poor  is  their  pov- 
erty." With  rare  exception  poverty  is  thought  to 
stand  an  insuperable  obstacle  to  advancement. 
The  Son  of  Man  and  those  possessing  Flis  Spirit 
refuse  to  recognize  the  distinctions  which  wealth 
suggests.  In  the  bill  of  items  embraced  in  the  mes- 
sage delivered  by  our  Lord  to  the  disciples  of  John 
the  Baptist  for  his  comfort  and  their  instruc- 
tion, perhaps  nothing  was  fraught  with  more 
interest  than  the  seventh  and  closing:  thought, 
"to  the  poor  the  gospel  is  preached."  This  would 
reassure  John,  for  this,  too,  was  in  harmony  with 
the  prophetic  utterance. 

The  glamour  of  wealth  has  a  far  reaching 
influence  with  our  learned  doctor.  If  inherited, 
"it  was  the  symbol  of  refinement  and  gentle- 
ness;" "if  tlie  issue  of  toil  and  business  effort, 
it  stood  for  coarse  greed;"  but  the  man  with 
money  possessed  a  potent  factor  quick  to  win  his 
way  to  the  lieart  of  the  author.  Money  made 
possible,  in  his  estimation,  culture  and  refine- 
ment. These  were  paramount.  The  danger  as- 
sociated with  riches,  though  magnified  by  our 
Lord,  suggests  no  occasion  for  worriment  with 
Dr.  Watson. 

The  Lord  loved  sinners.  He  came,  the  ex- 
pression of  God's  love;  He  recognized  no  man- 
made  distinctions.  Rich  men  were  not  noted  in 
the  record  as  quick  to  cast  in  their  lot  with  the 
One  of  whom  it  wis  said  "the  foxes  have  holes, 
the  bird>»  of  the  air  have  nests,  but  the  Son  of 
Man  hath  not  where  to  lay  His  head."  When 
the  disciples  went  to  their  homes,  Jesus  went  to 


51 

the  Mount  of  Olives.  "If  a  penny  is  needed  to 
illustrate  His  answer  to  a  question,  He  had  to 
ask  for  one;  when  the  temple  tax  is  wanted,  a 
miracle  provides  it.  It  was  with  the  rich  in  His 
death,"  because  it  was  written.  ''He  came  to 
seek  and  to  save  that  which  was  lest"— the  poor, 
the  maimed,  the  blind,  humanly  speaking,  more 
susceptible  to  the  Spirit's  wooing.  His  dealiogs 
with  the  blind  beggar  of  John  IX,  gives  us  t?ome 
of  the  sweetest  episodes  in  His  life.  It  was  just 
before  reaching  Jericho,  and  at  the  time  of  Jei«us' 
wonderful  discovery  of  the  little  rich  sinner  in 
the  sycamore  tree,  that  He  blessed  a  blind  beg- 
gar. Jesus  gave  the  best  He  brought  to  the 
poor;  He  was  not  dazzled  by  the  rich,  but  He 
withheld  nothing  from  them  which  they  were  will- 
ing to  receive.  It  might  be  pertinent  in  asking 
what  would  Jesus  do,  to  question  whether  He 
would  speak  a  few  pious  words  in  a  hovel  atd 
permit  the  mourners  in  their  sorrow  to  bear 
their  dead  to  the  Silent  City  alone,  while  spend- 
ing days  in  preparing  to  laud  some  Christless  rich 
because  of  their  money. 

Our  learned  Scotchman's  rhapsodies  over 
"the  rich  young  Ruler"  and  his  apologies  for  "the 
unrestrained  luxury"  of  him  of  Luke  XVI,  proves 
his  susceptibility  to  the  power  of  wealth.  Kiches 
may  prove  the  sad  undoing  of  both,  but  their 
votaries  receive  much  more  attention  than  the 
blind  beggar  of  John  IX,  and  the  lowly  fisher- 
man whom  Jesus  dignified  by  calling  them  to  be 
with  and  near  Him.  Dr.  Watson  commisserates 
and  excuses  the  rich  young  Ruler  in  his  rejection 
of  Jesus  because  of  his  riches,  which  he  esteems 
a  virtue,  compared  to  the  fishing  boat  which 
Peter  gave  up  when  he  came  to  Jesus,  or  the 
custom  house  which  Matthew  deserted,  when  he 
left  it  to  follow  the  Lord.  The  'ingenuous 
prayer  of  the  young  ruler  was  no  prayer,  it  was  a 
question.  Jesus  loved  him  as  He  loved  evprv 
other  sinner  who  needed  eternal  life,  not  for 
his  nobility,  l^icodemus,  his  peer,  needed  to  be 
born  again.     The  young  Ruler,  a  self-righteous 


Pharisee,  who  loved  his  money  more  than  dis-] 
cipleship,   professed   to  have  kept   all  the  com- 
mandments, while  his  decision  proved  he  had  not| 
kept  the  first;   but  he  had   riches,  and  this  ex- 
cused him,  even  though  he  prefers  his  money  tol 
everlasting  life.     A  cultured  life,  and  "assured] 
position"  go  far  with  the  doctor  to  condone  the] 
offense,   and   his  hero  is  made  to  sink   into   th< 
pit  with  his  social  equals,  men  of  the  same  habit 
as  himself,  rather  than  enter  into  life  with  mei 
his  peers,  save  in  dollars.     "He  wanted  an  atmos 
phere  of  refinement,  freedom  from  petty  cares;! 
it  would  be  a  shame  that  he  be  asked  to  reducel 
himself   to    poverty   and    become   companion  of] 
fishermen,  whose   ways  were  not  his  ways,   and 
wander   abiut  the  country  who   had  lived  in   aj 
home."      From    a  human    standpoint  thousand! 
beholding  only  the  life   which  is,  might   be  ex- 
cused for  refusing  to  give  up  their  possessions,] 
but    Jesus   was  dealing  with    eternal   interests, 
and  there  was  nothing  in  the  fleeting  pleasures 
which  dollars   would   bring,  compared  with  the] 
divine  beusdiction  here  and  eternity  with  God| 
hereafter. 

The  rich  young  Ruler  under  law  desires 
know  what  he  shall  do    to  inherit    eternal  lifeJ 
and  it  is  only  on  this  principle  that  Jesus  tells) 
him  to  keep  the  commandments. 


FBEE  ON   APPI.ICATION 

Also  by  same  author. 

Pages 

'Inspiration," ^^ 

•The  Word  of  God" 4 

•The  Lord's  Day," J 

'All  Not  of  Grace  Goes," 16 

'Pulpit,  Pew,  Hell,"  Etc 48 

'Dry  Bones," 4 

'Christian  Living  and  Giving," 16 

Two  Natures,"  Etc  32 

•  Vnd  It  Was  Night."  4 

•Christianity  vs.  Judaism." 32 

'The  Lord's  Supper," 8 

Address  EDWIN  A.  WILSON, 

Springfield,  Illinois. 


BS2420  .W747 

Review  of  Rev.  John  Watson's  Life  of  the 
limiiTr°"  ^^^°'°9'"'  Seminary-Speer  Librat7 


1   1012  00052  4597 


